^  PRINCETON,    N.    J. 


9^. 


Presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


Ag.new  Coll.  on  Baptism,  No. 


"W))  ^/ 


-Jy^-^'J^' 


^^4-j 


[!.-*" 

^"^' 

•;.fj 

L''V 

'-,     1, 

r^; 

4  " ; 

t?i-j. 


I^pv 


Studies  on  Baptism.] 


[FilOiSTlSPIKCB. 


p.  292. 
BAPTISTERY    IN    THE    CATACOMB    OF    ST.    PONTIANUS. 


STUDIES 


ON 


The  Baptismal  Question; 


INCLITDING  A  KETIBW  Off 


m.  DALE'S  "INQUIEY  INTO  THE  USAGE  OE  BAPTIZO." 


BY 

REV.  DAVID  B.  FORD. 


BOSTON: 
H.  A.  YOUNG  &  CO.,   13  BROMFIELD  STREET. 

NEW   YOEK: 

"WARD  &  DRUMMOND,  116  NASSAU  STREET. 

1879. 


stereotyped  and  printed  by 

Rand,  Avery,  and  Company, 

117  Franklin  Street, 

Boston. 


PEEFAOE. 


This  Treatise  on  the  Baptismal  Question,  a  portion  of  which  originally 
appeared  in  the  columns  of  "  The  Watchman,"  embraces  among  its  studies, 
and  as  a  part  of  the  same,  a  Review  of  Dr.  Dale's  "Inquiry  into  the  Usage 
of  Baptizo,"  —  the  first  extended  examination  of  that  wonderful  work  which 
has  yet  appeared.  While  we  have  aimed  in  these  pages  to  be  irenic  and 
conciliatory,  rather  than  polemic,  we  have  yet  endeavored  to  set  forth  the 
truth,  let  it  favor  or  impugn  whom  it  might.  Any  notice  of  misrepresenta- 
tions or  mistakes  occurring  in  this  volume  will  be  most  thanlrfuUy  received 
by  the  author. 

By  the  disuse  of  Greek  type,  and  by  frequent  translation  of  Latin  quo- 
tations, we  have  sought  to  furnish  a  treatise  which  our  intelligent  laymen 
could,  for  the  most  part,  easily  understand;  while,  at  the  same  time,  we 
have  designed  to  make  it  a  thesaurus  on  the  whole  subject,  which  should 
be  so  complete  and  reliable,  that  students  and  preachers  in  general  may 
find  in  it  all  which  they  will  really  need. 

And  now  this  our  work,  with  whatever  of  merit  it  may  have  (for  which 
we  are  indebted  to  many  libraries  and  to  many  friends),  and  with  whatever 
of  imperfection,  is  given  to  the  public  with  the  hope  and  prayer  that  it  may 
further  the  cause  of  truth  and  of  Christ,  and  be  promotive  of  true  charity 
and  Christian  union  among  "  all  that  in  every  place  call  upon  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  both  theirs  and  ours." 

DAVID  B.  FOED. 

Hanover,  Mass. 


OOI^TTEl^TS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

GENERAL  CHAEACTERI8TICS  OF  DR.  DALE'S  "WORK  AND  THEORY 
(pp.  5-12). 

Hugeness  of  the  work,  5;  extensive  consideration  of  synonymes,  5;  dip 
versus  baptizo  and  immerse,  6;  "tlie  theory"  of  Baptists  (?),  6;  spirit  of  the 
work,  grateful  acknowledgments  and  courtly  gibes,  7;  the  work  essentially 
baptistic,  7;  haptizo  demands  "  intusposition,"  8;  baptizo  makes  demand  for 
"  condition,"  9;  alleged  secondary  meaning,  9;  purifying  influence  of  Wil- 
liams, Beech er,  and  Godwin,  10;  Dale's  controlling  influence  without  intus- 
position, 10;  Dr.  Whitsitt's  application  of  the  influence  theory,  10;  several 
"final"  definitions,  11;  "a  myriad-sided  word,"  12;  too  indefinite  for  Christ's 
law  to  His  church,  12. 

CHAPTER  n. 

COMPLIMENTART  TESTIMONIALS  (pp.  13-15). 

Dr.  Dale's  virtual  Quakerism,  13;  indorsed  by  Pedobaptists  generally,  13; 
extravagant  commendations,  13;  a  dissenting  voice  in  "  The  New-Englander," 
13, 14;  sabsequjent  authors  depending  on  Dr.  Dale,  14, 15. 


CHAPTER  in. 

A  DALE   (J.  W.)   OVERWHELMED  (pp.  16-18). 

Baptismal  intusposition  and  ine\dtable  drowning,  16;  "a  dipping  kills 
nobody,"  17;  hopes  of  emergence  succeeded  by  despair,  17;  baptizo  summoned 
to  the  rescue,  18. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

WATER-BAPTISM  NOT  A  DROWNING-   (pp.  19-22). 

Remarks  of  Drs.  Kendrick  and  Carson,  19;  advocates  of  a  drowning  bap- 
tism, 19;  no  fatal  suffocation  in  Naaman's  sevenfold  baptism,  20;  ship-sinking 
baptisms,  20;  Conant's  baptizein,  20;  divers  classic  examples  versus  inevita- 
ble drowning,  21,  22.  V 


vi  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  Y. 

WATEPv-BAPTISM  MORE  THAN  A  WETTTN'G   (pp.  23-27). 

"  The  Congregationalist,"  23;  Professor  G.  B.  Jewett,  23;  pouring  and  sprin- 
kling "  not  tlie  most  natural  servitors  "  of  baptizo,  23;  patristic  and  classic  exam- 
ples versus  partial  wettings,  24;  testimony  of  Casaubon,  Turretin,  and  Witsius, 
24;  partial  immersions,  25;  Dr.  Brenner's  baptizein,  25;  baptism  of  Carmel's 
altar  by  pouring,  —  Origen,  26;  immersion  by  sprinkling,  —  "Walter  Scott, 
26;  Carson's  "  dip,  and  nothing  but  dip,"  surrendered,  27;  his  "immerse,  and 
nothing  else,"  adopted,  27;  Beecher's  and  Dale's  definitions  of  baptizo  primary 
accepted,  27. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

CLASSIC  FIGURATIVE  BAPTISMS.  —  ATTEMPTS  AT  DEFINITION  (pp.  28-37). 

"  Fifteen  different  meanings,"  28;  patristic  names  for  baptism,  28;  "  all  the 
lexicographers  "  versus  Carson,  28;  Liddell  and  Scott's  Lexicon,  28;  tropical 
significations,  29;  immersion  or  submergence  their  one  ground  meaning,  29; 
immerse  treated  like  baptizo,  29;  a  controlling-influence  baptism  should  be 
grounded  on  a  "  mersive  influence,"  30;  concession  of  Professor  Anthon,  30; 
whelming  baptisms,  31;  Doddridge  on  Christ's  baptism  of  suffering,  31; 
attempts  at  definition, — immerse,  dij),  plunge,  whelm,  32;  Conant's  seven 
defining  terms  justified,  33;  pouring  regarded  as  the  "causative,"  not  the 
"constitutive,"  act  of  a  pouring  baptism,  34;  Dale's  antagonistic  specific  defi- 
nitions, 34;  Professor  Kendrick  on  Dale's  "bewilderment,"  35;  radical  and 
essential  meanings  becoming  strangely  obsolete,  36;  baptizing  a  river,  36;  how 
the  verb  "  to  name  "  may  denote  a  baptism  of  influence,  37. 

CHAPTER  VH. 

JUDAIC  PURIFTING  BAPTISMS   (pp.  38-44). 

Septuagint  and  Apocrypha,  38;  baptisms  of  pollution,  38;  "diverse  bap- 
tisms" of  Judaism,  38;  baptizings  of  pots,  cups,  &c.,  39;  baptisms  in  Philo 
and  in  Josephus,  39,  40;  immersion  as  symbolic  of  purification,  41,  42;  conces- 
sions of  Eev.  J.  Chrystal  and  Dr.  Wall,  41, 42;  a  receptive  element  may  exert  a 
purifying  agent  influence,  43;  immersion  as  best  symbolizing  the  purifying 
idea  of  baptism,  43,  44. 

CHAPTER  VIH. 

PURLFTING  BAPTISM  IN  SIRACH,  —  ECCLUS.  XXXIV.  25  (pp.  45-48). 

Purification  of  a  corps-3-defiled  man,  45;  completed  by  a  baptismal  loutron, 
or  bathing,  45;  this  text  as  used  by  Cyprian  and  the  Donatists,  45;  meaning  of 
rdhats  and  touo,  45;  Campbell  and  Carson  on  Zowo,  46;  loutron  in  the  Septua- 
gint and  New  Testament,  46;  Delitzsch  on  the  Judaic  "  diverse  baptisms,"  46; 


CONTENTS.  Vii 

S.  Fuller's  "  loutron,  or  water-baptism,"  46;  the  Jewish  loutron,  47;  testimony 
of  Rabbi  Wise,  47;  Barclay's  Talmud,  48;  the  design  of  haptizo  not  expressed 
in  the  word  itself.  48. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

JOSEPirUS'  BAPTISM  OF  HEIFER-ASHES   (pp.  49-53). 

Whiston's  translation,  49;  Bekker's  amended  text,  49;  translations  of  Co 
nant  and  others,  49;  specimens  of  Dale's  elucidation  of  the  original  text,  50 ; 
bis  rendering  versus  Hudson's  and  Dindorf's,  51;  not  sustained  by  Cyril  of 
Alexandria,  52;  no  such  thing  as  "  baptism  by  the  sprinkling  of  heifer-ashes," 
62,  53. 

CHAPTER   X. 

JUDITH'S  BAPTISM  AT  THE  FOUNTAIN"  (pp.  54-59). 

The  story  of  Judith,  54;  her  baptism  in  the  camp  at  the  fountain,  55,  56; 
the  "mode"  was  immersion  and  emersion,  57;  Carson  misrepresented  by 
Hutchings,  57;  other  instances  of  females  bathing  at  a  fountain,  58;  St. 
Patrick's  baptism  of  Ethna  and  Fethlema  at  the  Fountain  Clebach,  58;  the 
fondness  of  haptizo  for  rivers,  pools,  &c.,  58;  St.  Patrick's  baptizing  in  rivers,  59. 

CHAPTER  XI. 

XNTOXrCATINQ-  BAPTISMS  (pp.  60-66). 

Many  examples  in  the  classics,  60;  the  mode  of  such  baptisms  was  by 
"drinking,"  60;  baptized  with  wine,  or  wine-soaked,  61;  inebriating  influence 
conceived  as  baptismal  element,  61 ;  C.  Taylor's  marvellous  explanation  of  a 
drunken  baptism,  61;  Latin  words  signifying  to  wet,  soak,  &c.,  often  applied 
to  the  inebriate,  61 ;  so  the  Greek  brecJio  and  hiipohrecho,&1;  have  all  these 
words  acquired  the  meaning  of  controlling  influence  ?  62 ;  quotation  from  Dale 
on  intoxicating  baptisms,  63;  patristic  baptism  of  blood  and  of  tears,  63; 
Thebe's  baptism  of  Alexander  with  "  much  wine  "  at  Pherje,  illustrative  of 
John's  baptism  at  ^non,  (54;  Christ's  baptism  of  penal  suffering  effected  by  His 
drinking  of  the  "  cup  "  ?  65;  baptism  by  drinking  at  the  Fountain  of  SUenus,  65; 
will  drinking  pure  or  "  sanctified  "  water  baptize  ?  65,  QQ. 

CHAPTER  XII. 

ALLEGED  CHANGE  OF  MEAISTNG  IN"  BAPTO   (pp.  67-82). 

Bapto  and  6apii20  formerly  treated  as  one  word,  67;  their  resemblance  and 
differences,  67;  hapitizo  often  equivalent  to  bapto,  67;  analogical  reasoning  from 
a  change  of  'meaning  in  bapto  to  a  change  of  meaning  in  baptizo,  68;  words  en- 
tirely lose  their  primary,  essential  meanings  ?  68,  69;  alleged  instances  of  bapto 
thus  losing  its  primary  meaning,  70;  Nebuchadnezzar's  dew-dipping,  70;  exam- 
ples from  the  classics,  70;  Hippocrates'  usage  as  regards  bapto,  71;  Carson's 


dii  CONTENTS. 

unfortunate  use  of  the  term  "mode,"  71,  72;  Aristotle's  sea^coast  baptism,  72; 
lake-dipping  in  the  blood  of  a  frog,  73;  change  of  syntax  as  proving  a  change  of 
meaning,  74;  Milton's  and  Cowper's  color-dippings,  74;  has  our  "  dip  "  lost  its 
radical  meaning  ?  74,  75 ;  secondary  meanings  as  having  a  status  independent  of 
the  primary,  75;  cavilling  at  the  "  incongruities  "  of  a  metaphor,  75;  different 
meanings  of  dip,  76;  hapto  never  lost  its  primary  meaning,  77;  examples  of 
Buch  meaning  in  Hippocrates,  the  Septuagint,  and  New  Testament,  77; 
tabal,  to  dip,  found  sixteen  times  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  hapto  eighteen 
times  in  the  Septuagint,  77;  different  meanings  of  hapto,  78;  a  secondary  mean- 
ing to  hapto  no  proof  that  ftaptizo  has  one,  79;  a  ritual  water-baptism  has  no 
concern  with  any  secondary  meaning,  79;  illustrated  by  "circumcise"  and 
"  dip,"  80;  Dale's  discussion  as  to  the  secondary  use  of  words  irrelevant  to  the 
baptismal  controversy,  81,  82. 

CHAPTER  Xin. 

LOOSE  EEASONINGS   (pp.  83-99). 

Samples  of  loose  reasoning  in  general,  83 ;  specimens  not  of  the  "  logic  of 
Chillingworth "  In  Dale's  volumes,  84,  85;  his  explanation  of  the  patristic, 
"  momentary  water-covering,"  86;  ignoring  the  distinction  of  act  and  effect, 
87;  Cyprian's  divine  compends  of  baptism,  87;  the  patristic  perfusion  a  vir- 
tual immersion,  88;  J.  A.  Alexander's  defence  of  baptismal  compends,  89; 
Chrystal  on  misinterpretation  of  Cyprian,  89;  Dale's  syllogism  regarding 
Cyprian's  sprinkling-baptism,  90;  our  compend  observance  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, 90 ;  arguing  from  supposed  significance  of  the  rite,  91 ;  patristic  panegyrics 
on  baptism,  91;  patristic  baptism  "no  mere  dipping  in  water,"  92;  Dale's 
incursion  among  the  "  fathers,"  and  his  report  of  their  views,  92;  Dr.  Hague 
versits  reasoning  from  the  "  signification  of  the  rite,"  93;  confounding  of  mode 
with  act,  94;  divers  inconsistencies  and  contradictions,  95;  ignoring  of  active 
and  passive  forms,  96;  symbolizing  baptism  versus  baptizing  "  symbolly,"  96; 
the  act  of  baptism,  97;  looseness,  in  the  explication  of  the  meaning  of  words, 
97;  "eat"  and  "drink  "thus  explicated,  97,  98;  weighty  words  of  Professors 
Chase  and  Eipley,  99. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE  rNTXITENCE  THEORY  US  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT   (pp.  100-112). 

Meaning  of  haptizo  supposed  to  be  changed  by  religious  usage,  100;  the 
enacting  term  in  a  law  should  be  definite,  100;  to  a  correspondent,  101;  how 
immerse  may  be  made  to  mean,  not  immerse,  but  sprinkle,  101;  testimony  of 
Professor  Sophocles  as  to  the  unchanged  meaning  of  haptizo,  102;  what 
"baptize  into  "  denotes,  102;  the  New  Testament  furnishes  for  haptizo  "ideal 
elements,"  instead  of  water,  102;  bajitisms  of  (effected  by)  doctrine,  103; 
"repentance  baptizes,"  103;  commentators  on  Heb.  vi.  2,  103;  Scripture 
phraseology  changed  to  suit  the  influence  theory,  104;  Dale's  water-rite 
examples  no  ritual  baptisms,  104;  such  examples  recognized  in  the  N^w 
Testament,  105;  a  double  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  105;  water-baptism 
mfluenced  out  of  the  New  Testament,  106;  "  haiMzo  has  no  control  over  water 
m  the  New  Testament,"  107;   force  of  this  acknowledgment,  107;   what  did 


CONTENTS.  is. 

Philip  do?  107;  influence  theory  and  the  great  commission,  108;  "a  ritual 
baptism  by  water  was  not  instituted  in  the  commission,"  108;  yet  a  water- 
late  is  insinuated  into  the  discipling  process,  108;  how  sprinkling  into  the 
name,  &c.,  could  be  conserved  for  the  infliience  theory,  108;  different  methods 
of  discipling,  109;  a  ritual  baptism  into  the  name  of  the  Trinity  declared  to 
be  impossible,  109;  infants,  as  an  "integral  i)art  of  the  nations,"  entitled  to  a 
water-rite,  110;  questions  for  consideration.  111,  112;  importance  of  the  bap- 
tismal rite.  111 ;  thoughtful  words  of  Alf ord,  111,  112. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

BAPTIZO  AJSTD  THE  PEEPOSITIONS. —  " IDEAL  ELEMENTS"  (pp.  113-131). 

Baptizo  removed  from  all  connection  with  its  natural  element  by  means  of 
"  ideal  elements,"  113;  its  natural  affinity  for  water,  114;  number  of  examples 
in  the  New  Testament  of  baptizing  in  and  into  a  commonly-supposed  element, 
114;  Professor  Abbot  on  Mark  i.  8, 114;  eis  with  so-called  ideal  elements, 
115;  baptism  into  repentance,  115;  Alexander  Campbell's  baptizing  into  (to 
effect  a)  "reformation,"  116;  views  of  different  writers,  116;  references  to 
different  authors  on  John's  baptism,  117;  baptism  into  Moses,  into  the  name 
of  Paul,  &c.,  117;  water  "  naturally  designates  the  element,"  117;  incongru- 
ous phraseology,  117;  baptizing  into,  in,  and  upon  a  name,  118;  patristic 
usage,  118;  Dr.  Dale  on  eis  with  ideal  elements  versus  Professor  Cremer,  119, 
120;  baptizing  into  ideal  elements  leaves  John  with  nothing  to  do,  119; 
alleged  baptisms  into  ideal  elements  outside  the  Scriptures,  119,  120;  John's 
baptizing  "symbolly,"  and  symbolizing  baptism,  120;  a  superhuman  task 
to  influence  men  with  water  into  repentance,  121 ;  repentance  by  the  influence 
theory  is  baptizer,  element,  and  instrument,  121 ;  meaning  of  baptism  of  re- 
pentance into  remission,  122;  Scripture  connection  of  repentance  and  remis- 
sion, 122;  force  of  baptisma,  122;  Professor  E,ipley  and  others  on  baptism 
and  remission,  123;  this  remission  in  John's  baptism  present,  or  future?  124; 
no  baptism  of  impenitent  men  into  repentance,  124;  immersion  in  water 
naturally  symbolic  of  mersion  into  repentance,  125;  ideal  elements  need  not 
preclude  a  physical  baptism,  125;  a  marvellous  change  wrought  on  the  body 
by  its  "symbol  baptism,"  126;  acknowledged  ritual  baptisms  into  ideal  ele- 
ments, 126;  both  in  and  into  used  in  the  same  baptism,  126;  a  twofold  bap- 
tism corresponding  to  man's  twofold  nature,  127;  a  "  symbol  baptism  of  the 
body"  allowed  if  effected  with  water,  but  not  in  water,  127;  why  John  did 
not  practise  that  water-rite  which  best  symbolizes  a  baptism  "into  repent- 
ance," 128;  "  John  was  [not]  commissioned  to  drown,"  &c.,  128;  meaning  of 
eis  in  connection  with  ideal  elements  and  baptismal  formula,  128,  129;  various 
authors  cited,  128,  129;  views  of  Drs.  Carson,  Ashmore,  and  Towersou,  130;. 
quotation  from  Professor  Broadus,  131. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

BAPTIZO  AND  THE  PREPOSITIONS.  — "INTO  THE  JORDAN"  (pp.  132-141). 

Baptize  into  affirmed  to  be  an  organic  phrase,  with  three  exceptions,  132; 
meaiung  of  eis  in  Liddell  and  Scott's  Lexicon,  133;  the  author  of  "New  and 


X  CONTENTS. 

Decisive  Evidence"  puzzled,  133;  substituting  sprinkling,  pouring,  &c.,  for 
iaptizo,  throws  every  thing  "  out  of  kilter,"  133;  Carson  on  "  making  clear  pas- 
sages dark,"  133;  his  remarks  on  the  three  prepositions  {eis,  en,  and  ek)  assum- 
ing together  an  unusual  signification,  134;  on  purchasing  "provisions"  at 
Eome,  134;  examples  of  words  changing  their  meaning,  134;  Professor  St^iart 
in  "a  strait,"  135;  meaning  of  the  phrase  "into  the  Jordan,"  136;  uses  of  eis 
and  ek,  137;  no  reason  for  departing  from  literal  meaning,  138;  why  rivers 
■were  resorted  to,  138;  TertuUian's  indifference  to  kinds  of  water,  138;  satisfied 
with  the  prepositions  as  they  are,  139;  baptizo  eis,  whether  into  or  at,  de- 
mands intusposition,  139;  quotation  from  the  "  Philosopher  of  Tuhbermore," 
140, 141. 

CHAPTER  XVn. 

BAPTIZO  A17D  THE  PREPOSITIOXS.  —  "  LS" "  WATER,  &c.  (pp.  142-153). 

Prepositions  connected  with  classic  baptizo,  142;  baptizo  en,  according  to  Dale, 
may  express  an  unending  mersion,  142 ;  may  put  the  baptizer  in  the  water,  rather 
than  the  candidate,  143;  in  the  Jordan  as  meaning  at  or  near,  144;  baptizing  in 
the  wilderness  creates  no  necessity  for  dipping  in  "waste  lands,"  &c.,  144; 
John's  first  (?)  baptizing-iDlace  in  Bethany  beyond  the  Jordan,  145;  baptizing  in 
^non,  145;  en  as  meaning  not  only  at  and  near,  but  with,  145;  Dr.  Campbell  on 
our  authorized  version,  146 ;  en  as  used  Hebraistically,  147 ;  explaining  clear  pas- 
sages by  dark  ones,  147;  C.  Taylor  on  the  drowning  scarecrow,  148;  baptism  in 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire,  148;  fire-baptism  referred  to  punishment,  148;  fire  as 
explanatory  of  the  Spirit's  efficacy,  149;  the  baptizer  "  being  in  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  fire  "  iDurifies  by  the  same,  149;  yet  not  purifies,  but  punishes,  the  impeni- 
tent, 150;  the  Holy  Spirit  no  quiescent  element,  150;  diverse  baxrtisms  in  the 
Spirit,  150;  no  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  151;  the  Pentecostal  baptism,  151;  out- 
pouring of  the  Spirit  antecedent  to  the  iromersion  in  it,  151;  baptism  in  the. 
Spirit  indicates  overflowing  abundance,  152,  153;  views  of  ancient  and  modem 
authors,  152, 153. 

CHAPTER  XVIH. 

BAPTIZO  "WITHOUT  THE  PREPOSITIONS.  — "WITH"  WATER  (pp.  154-162). 

John's  water-baptism  six  times  contrasted  with  the  Spirit's  baptism,  154; 
the  word  for  water  being  four  times  in  the  nude  "  dative  of  instrument,"  a  suj)- 
posed  proof  that  baptism  is  not  immersion,  154;  De  "Wette's  and  Winer's  expla- 
nation, 155;  the  witJi  does  not  exclude  the  ui,  155;  immersion  consistent  with 
agency  or  instrument,  156;  with  and  in  are  kindred  to  each  other,  156;  exam- 
ples of  nude  ablative  not  forbidding  immersion,  157, 158;  examples  in  the  Greek 
fathers  of  simple  dative  with  verbs  demanding  intusposition,  159-162;  depress- 
ing the  head  in  baptism,  160-162;  supjposed  baptisms  by  merely  touching  the 
head,  160-162. 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

BAPTISM  OF  THE  MULTITUDES  BY  JOKN"  (pp.  163-173). 

Numbers  supposed  to  have  been  baptized,  163;  their  immersion  declared  to 
be  impossible,  164;  one  of  Carson's  canons,  165;  John  on  the  bank  or  in  the 


CONTENTS.  xi 

river?  165;  multitudes  sent  away  unlDaptized,  16(5;  comparative  numlDer  of 
John's  and  Jesus'  baptized  disciples,  166;  Jolm  continuously  baptizing,  167; 
why  iEnon  was  selected,  167;  Jesus  did  not  select  watering-i)laces  for  the 
multitudes  who  followed  Him,  168;  women  and  children  excluded  from 
John's  baptism,  168;  Palestine  a  land  of  brooks  and  fountains,  168,  169; 
disrobing  and  enrobing,  169;  Stanley  on  pilgrim  bathing,  170;  Dean  Alford 
on  John's  baptism  and  proselyte  baptism,  170;  Dr.  Wall,  E.  G.  Bengel,  and 
others,  on  proselyte  baptism,  171;  Lieut.  Lynch' s  description  of  pilgrim  bath- 
ing, 172, 173. 

CHAPTER  XX. 

BAPTISM  OF  COUCHES   (pp.  174-178). 

Carson  on  objection  from  difficulties  not  involving  impossibility,  174  ;  view 
of  Professors  Shedd  and  Alexander,  174;  Professor  Abbot  and  others  on  the 
original  text  and  its  translation,  174;  what  were  these  klinai,  how  defiled,  and 
how  purified,  175;  Clement's  baptizing  "  upon  bed,"  176;  clinic  baptisms,  177; 
Dean  Stanley  on  the  original  form  of  baptism,  177;  "  credulity  sorely  taxed," 
178;  Carson  again  aspersed  by  Hutchings,  178. 

CHAPTER  XXI. 

BAPTISM  OF  THE  "THREE  THOUSAND"  (pp.  179-192). 

"Water-resources  in  Jerusalem,  179;  Hutchings'  and  Dale's  insuperable  dif- 
ficulties, 180;  difficulties  of  attendance  at  the  ancient  festivals,  180;  statements 
of  Josephus,  181;  alack  both  of  wood  and  water  around  Jerusalem,  182,  183; 
many  ablutionary  purifications  required,  182,  183;  C.  Taylor  on  self-immersion 
prior  to  the  baptismal  laouring,  183;  the  Jews  not  likely  to  favor  the  Chris- 
tians with  facilities  of  immersion,  184;  immersion  of  the  three  thousand 
by  the  apostles  declared  to  be  impossible,  184,  185;  how  many  were  baptized? 
186;  did  the  apostles  ever  iiersonally  administer  baptism?  186;  the  administra- 
tors of  baptism  in  the  New  Testament,  187;  time  required  for  "any  reverent 
application  of  water,"  187;  the  Sandwich-Island  compendious  mode  of  baptism, 
188 ;  the  three  thousand  may  not  all  have  been  bajitized  in  one  day,  188 ;  native 
Greeks  have  ever  recognized  baptism  as  immersion,  189;  immersion  of  other 
three  thousands  in  one  day,  189;  baptism  of  Northiimbrians  by  Paulinus,  189; 
baptism  of  Clovis  and  more  than  three  thousand  of  his  army,  190;  and  of 
"  aboiit  three  thousand"  in  Constantinople  by  Chrysostom's  presbyters,  190- 
192;  references  to  works  of  Dr.  Cathcart  and  Eev.  H.  S.  Burrage,  192. 

CHAPTER   XXH. 

BAPTISM  OF  THE  EUNUCH  (pp.  193-200). 

Specimen  of  Dale's  interpretative  capacities,  193;  Dr.  Thomson  on  the  lo- 
cality of  the  eunuch's  baptism,  194;  the  going-down  of  kaiabaino  allows  no 
second  step  ?  194  ;  Professor  Stuart  on  katabaino  cis,  194  ;  entering  tlic  water 
"even  to  the  loins"  for  the  sake  of  sprinkling,  195;  Heaton's  suggested  im- 


xii  CONTENTS. 

provements  of  Luke's  phraseology,  195 ;  Tcatabaino  eis  will  not  only  take  one 
into,  hut  will  even  cover  with,  water,  196 ;  the  eunuch's  long  journey,  attend- 
ants, and  supplies,  197;  Doddridge  on  the  unnaturalness  of  going  down  to  the 
water  for  a  mere  hand-pouring,  198;  the  servant  of  Jehovah  sprinkling  many 
nations,  198;  the  Septuagint  version  silent  as  to  any  sprinkling,  199;  opinions 
of  commentators,  199,  200. 


CHAPTER  XXni. 

BAPTISMAL  BUEIAL   (pp.  201-221). 

Carson  on  the  meaning  and  value  of  Eom.  vi.  3,  4,  201 ;  most  "  commentators 
of  note  "  see  in  this  passage  a  reference  to  immersion,  201;  Stuart  and  Beecher 
on  the  practice  of  the  church  fathers,  202;  quotations  from  the  fathers,  202- 
205;  testimony  of  Dr.  "Wall,  206,  207;  what  Dale  thinks  of  the  patristic  "mo- 
mentary covering  in  water,"  208;  he  sees  in  Eom.  vi.  3, 4,  no  reference  to  exter- 
nal rite,  208;  Meyer  on  baptizo  eis,  and  on  the  meaning  of  this  passage,  209; 
views  of  Matthies  and  Canon  Lightfoot,  210;  haptism  a  symbol  of  death  and 
resurrection,  210;  commentators  on  Col.  ii.  12,  and  on  Peter's  assertion  that 
haptism  saves  "  through  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,"  211;  how  much  of 
the  apostle's  representation  is  literal,  and  how  much  figurative,  211, 212 ;  further 
testimony  of  the  fathers,  213;  views  of  Dr.  Towerson,  Eev.  J.  Owen,  and  Pres- 
sense,  214;  Beecher's  three  positions,  and  Dale's  "  legitimate  argument,"  215; 
into  name,  into  death,  &c.,  not  proper  baptismal  elements,  215;  a  baptism  into 
ideal  elements  allowed  if  done  by  sprinkling,  216;  eternity  of  condition  sym- 
bolized by  immersion  quite  as  well  as  by  sprinkling,  217 ;  immersion  as  natu- 
rally symbolizing  death  and  burial,  217;  the  word  (immerse),  which  by  its  in- 
tusposition  creates  thorough  influence,  should  be  used  to  express  that  influence, 
218;  objection  that  the  performance  of  an  external  rite  cannot  prove  deadness 
to  sin,  218;  all  the  baptized,  sanctified,  and  justified  Christians  of  Rome,  Cor- 
inth, and  Galatia,  actually  free  from  sin  ?  219;  views  of  commentators  and  the 
fathers,  220,  221. 

CHAPTER  XXIY. 

BAPTISM   IN  THE    CLOUD  AKD    SEA,  AND  AS    TYPIFIED   BY  THE   FLOOD 

(pp.  222-228). 

Paul's  use  of  the  prepositions  not  satisfactory  to  our  opponents,  222 ;  why 
Paul  speaks  of  a  Mosaic  baptism,  223;  Meyer's  remarks  concerning  cloud  and 
sea,  223;  De  Wette  on  the  dry-ground  immersion,  223;  meaning  of  baptized 
into  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,  224;  concessions  of  Professor  Stuart 
and  other  Pedobaptists,  224;  the  cloud  and  sea  baptism  as  effected  by  rain- 
drops and  spray,  225 ;  the  Israelites  by  the  miracle  of  cloud  and  sea  were  in- 
duced to  intuspose  themselves  into  Moses,  225;  this  figurative  intusposition 
imparted  a  Mosaic  influence  which  led  them  to  become  subject  to  Moses  for  an 
indefinite  period,  225;  this  period  was,  in  reality,  very  brief,  226  ;  with  the 
fathers,  the  drowning  of  Pharaoh  and  his  hosts  signified  the  drowning  of  the 
devil  and  one's  sins  in  baptism,  226 ;  the  patristic  symbology  of  the  Noachian 
flood-baptism,  226;  interpretation  of  1  Pet.  iii.  21,  226;  views  of  commentators 


CONTENTS.  xiii 

on  tlie  eperotema  ("  answer  ")  of  a  good  conscience,  227;  Luther's  reference  to 
the  baptism  of  the  flood  and  of  the  Red  Sea  in  his  "  Form  for  the  Baptism  of 
Infants,"  228. 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

BAPTISMAL  BATHTN-G  (pp.  229-238). 

Diverse  views  as  to  the  common  way  of  Greek  bathing,  229;  the  common- 
ness of  bodily  ablution  in  the  ancient  East,  230;  rahats,  louo,  and  lavo,  230;  Noel 
on  Naaman's  baptismal  bathing  in  the  Jordan,  230 ;  loutron  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, 231;  contrast  between  louo  and  nipto,  baptizo  and  nipto,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, 231;  commentators  on  the  after-market  baptizing  of  Mark  vii.  4,  232; 
Jewish  and  Egyptian  bathings,  232,  233;  our  Saviour's  contact  with  a  crowd 
deemed  equivalent  to  a  market  exposure  (Luke  xi.  38),  233 ;  views  of  commen- 
tators on  this  passage,  234;  the  Abyssinian  Kemmont,  234;  frequency  of  bath- 
ing among  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  234;  bathing  as  represented  on  some  an- 
cient vases,  235;  the  haptisteria  of  Pliny  large  enough  to  swim  in,  235;  descrip- 
tion of  baths  and  bathing  among  the  ancients,  236;  nothing  unusual  to  the 
early  Christians  in  the  practice  or  form  of  immersion,  237;  something  of 
"form"  in  trine  inunersion,  237;  this  practice  spoken  of  as  a  tradition,  238. 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 

rNFANT-BAPTISM  (pp.  239-260). 

Testimony  of  Pedobaptists  who  yet  deny  any  express  Scripture  precept  or 
example  for  infant-baptism,  239-241;  how  the  duty  of  infant-baptism  could 
have  been  made  plain,  242;  the  New-Testament  Scriptures  testify  against 
infant-baptism,  242;  "  men  and  women,"  but  no  infants,  baptized  at  Samaria, 
243;  divers  contradictory  grounds  for  infant-baptism,  243;  the  practice  not 
justified  by  the  Saviour's  blessing  little  children,  244-246 ;  views  of  commenta- 
tors, 244-246;  not  justified  by  Peter's  reference  to  the  "  promise"  (Acts  ii.  39), 
nor  by  the  asserted  "  holiness  "  of  children  who  have  pious  parentage  (1  Cor. 
vii.  14),  247;  views  of  different  writers,  248;  not  justified  on  the  ground  of  the 
Abrahamic  covenant  and  circumcision,  249;  contrast  between  the  law  of  cir- 
cumcision and  of  Christian  baptism,  250,  251;  circumcision  a  fleshly  ordinance, 
determining  nothing  as  to  one's  faith  or  piety,  252;  the  Jewish  national 
theocracy  not  a  pattern  for  the  Christian  Church,  252;  the  different  covenants 
made  with  Abraham,  and  their  differing  promises,  253,  254 ;  the  visible  church 
declared  to  be  "identical  under  both  dispensations,"  255;  argument  from 
grafting  into  the  good  olive-tree,  255;  Christian  governments  wholly  derelict 
touching  the  obligation  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  256;  feeble  utterances 
respecting  the  duty  of  infant-baptism  in  the  articles  of  the  Protestant  and 
Reformed  Episcoi:5al  churches,  256;  the  churches  of  Christ  should  not  invite 
the  enemy  within  to  sow  "tares,"  257;  remarks  of  Professor  Stuart  and  Dr. 
Sears,  257;  what  advantage  hath  the  Jew?  257,  258;  a  resemblance  ac- 
knowledged between  circumcision  and  baptism,  258;  the  apostles  and  elders 
declared  circumcision  abolished,  and  never  spoke  of  baptism  as  a  substitute, 
259,  260. 


2dv  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XXVII. 

HOUSEHOLD  BAPTISMS   (pp.  261-272). 

Difference  between  household  baptism  and  circumcision  baptism,  261;  unre- 
generate  adults  of  the  family  to  be  baptized,  262;  Dr.  Dale  on  Paul's  First 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  262 ;  the  kingdom  of  God  as  embracing,  not  the  state 
or  national,  but  only  the  family  constitution,  262;  the  actual  workings  of  this 
constitution  of  Christ's  kingdom,  263 ;  this  household  scheme  as  supported  by 
the  blood-sprinkling  which  saved  the  first-born,  264,  and  by  the  co-baptism  of 
a  half-million  parents  and  children  into  Moses,  265;  number  of  believing  and 
of  baptized  households  in  the  New  Testament,  266 ;  meaning  of  the  expres- 
sion "  forbid  the  water,"  266;  earliest  utterances  of  post-apostolic  history 
respecting  the  "mode,"  267;  scriptural  and  baptistic  methods  of  reporting 
baptisms,  268;  members  of  the  three  baptized  households  all  believers,  269; 
the  household  of  Stephanas,  269;  the  Philippian  jailer's  household,  270;  the 
household  of  Lydia,  271;  C.  Taylor's  distinction  between  oikos  and  oikia,  271; 
Heaton's  "  moral  certainty  "  based  on  a  slim  conjecture,  272;  views  of  MattMea 
and  Professor  Plumptre,  272. 

CHAPTER  XXVni. 

rNFAlirT-BAPTISM  AND  THE  "COMMISSION."  — nTFANT-COMMUNION 

(pp.  273-285). 

Dr.  Wall  finds  infants  among  the  "  nations  "  which  were  to  be  baptized,  and 
entered  as  scholars,  273;  Drs.  "Woods  and  "Wardlaw  make  the  commission  in- 
clude infants  by  inserting  the  words  "  proselyte,"  or  "  circumcise,"  274;  accord- 
ing to  the  commission,  either  no  infants,  or  else  all  infants,  should  be  baptized, 
275 ;  are  the  nations  to  be  discii3led  by  baptizing  and  teaching  ?  275 ;  testimony 
of  the  fathers,  276;  this  discipling  process  necessarily  excludes  infants  and 
unbelievers,  277;  discipling  not  necessarily  effected  by  baptizing,  278;  no  refer- 
ence to  infants  in  the  commission,  279;  Calvin's  negative  argument  refuted  by 
himself,  280;  infant-communion  in  the  early  church,  280;  grounds  for  infant- 
communion,  281;  Jeremy  Taylor's  argument  for  infant-communion,  282,283; 
views  of  other  writers,  284,  285. 

CHAPTER  XXIX. 

BAPTISMAL  MONUMENTS  OF  THE  EARLY  CHURCH  (pp.  286-308). 

Meaning  of  the  term  baptisteries,  286 ;  their  origin  and  magnificence,  286 
size  and  capacity  of  their  fonts,  287,  288;  the  baptismal  font  at  Tyre,  289,  290 
the  so-called  baptismal  font  of  Ephesus,  290,  291;  fonts  in  Palestine,  291,  292 
picture-baptism  in  the  cemetery  of  St.  Pontianus,  292-295;  other  picture-bap- 
tisms in  the  catacombs,  296,  297;  no  sign  of  hand-pouring,  298;  all  the  newly- 
baptized  were  called  infants,  298;   imposition  of  hands  in  baptism,  299;  in- 
scriptions in  the  catacombs  making  mention  of  the  baptism  of  children,  300, 
301 ;   ]3icture-baptisms  outside  of  the  catacombs,  302 ;  pictures  in  which  John 
holds  a  shell  in  his  hand,  303-305;  pictures  of  compend(?)  baptisms,  306-308. 


CONTENTS.  XV 

CHAPTER  XXX. 

DTFANT-BAPTISM  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH  (pp.  309-333) . 

A  "  thorny  "  controversy,  309;  infant-'baptism  cannot  be  shown  to  have  pre- 
vailed during  the  first  two  centuries  after  Christ,  309 ;  utterances  of  Hermas, 
Justin,  and  Clement,  have  no  reference  to  the  baptism  of  infants,  310;  Irenseus' 
assertion  that  infants,  &c.,  are  regenerated  by  Christ,  310;  views  of  German 
Pedobaptist  scholars,  and  of  Professor  Chase,  311;  Tertullian  the  first  who 
plainly  speaks  of  the  baptism  of  little  ones,  —  only,  however,  to  oppose  it,  312 ; 
further  patristic  panegyrics  on  baptism,  312;  only  in  and  through  baptism 
were  men  to  be  born  of  the  Spirit,  313;  decision  of  a  council  at  Carthage  on 
the  questioning  of  Fidus,  314;  baptism  with  the  fathers  a  synonyme  of  salva- 
tion, 315;  they  assign  unbaptized  infants  to  eternal  condemnation,  316;  a 
supposed  history  of  the  gradual  introduction  of  infant-baptism,  316;  long- 
continued  and  persistent  opposition  to  its  practice,  317;  evidence  of  its  neglect 
or  non-existence,  318,  319;  a  deep-felt  conviction  of  the  necessity  of  a  volun- 
tary profession  in  baptism,  320;  views  regarding  Tertullian's  opposition  to 
pedobaptism,  321-324;  Origen  on  parvuli  baptism,  325,  326;  the  little  worth  of 
alleged  apostolic  tradition,  327,  328 ;  age  of  Tertullian's  and  Origen's  baptized 
little  ones,  329;  quotation  from  Bunsen  and  others,  330-332;  references  on 
this  general  subject,  333. 

CHAPTER  XXXI. 

BAPTISMAL  REGENERATION  AND  REMISSION  (pp.  334-365). 

Views  of  the  fathers  and  of  the  Pelagians  touching  the  phrase  "born  of 
water,"  &c.,  334,  335;  Pusey's  "Nicodemus  question,"  336;  water  and  Spirit, 
337;  the  bath  of  regeneration  in  Tit.  iii.  5,  338-341;  baptizing  for  repentance 
and  for  remission,  338-341;  bath  of  the  water  in  the  word  (Eph.  v.  26),  342; 
Peter's  assertion  that  baptism  saves,  342,  343;  baptism  as  connected  with  re- 
mission and  salvation,  344,  345;  what  can  be  said  of  baptism  "in  all  its  com- 
pleteness," 346;  views  of  the  fathers  and  of  the  Anglican  di^anes,  347;  Pusey 
on  baptismal  regeneration,  348;  Paul's  sins  washed  away  in  baptism,  348;  the 
preposition  eis  (for)  as  used  in  a  telle  sense  and  otherwise,  349,  350;  views  of 
Puseyites,  351;  Hovey  on  1  Cor.  i.  13,  seq,,  352, 353;  Puseyism  and  Campbellism, 
354,  355 ;  baptism  in  the  Scriptures  always  preceded  by  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit, 
356;  Calvin  on  John  iii.  5,  357,  358;  baptismal  regeneration  and  indefectible 
grace,  359;  interior  facts  of  baptism,  360;  baptism  as  a  prerequisite  to  salvation, 
361;  the  kingdom  of  God  considered  as  Christ's  earthly  kingdom,  362;  views  of 
different  writers,  363;  quotation  from  Dr.  Ripley,  364,  365. 

CHAPTER  XXXII. 

A  RETROSPECTIVE  VIEW.— "CHRISTIAN  UNION"  (pp.  366-382). 

The  writer's  aim  and  method,  366;  Dale's  treatise  essentially  baptistic,  367, 
368;  three  chief  points  in  his  work,  367,  368;  Pedobaptists'  concessions,  369, 


xvi  CONTENTS. 

370;  Professor  Bipley  and  other  representative  Baptists  on  Christian  nnion 
and  close  comnmnion,  371-375;  "a  story  about  baptism"  and  Baptists,  375, 
S76;  restricted  communion  practised  and  justified  by  Pedobaptists,  377;  the 
order  of  baptism  and  the  Supper,  378;  open  communion  not  a  cure-all,  379; 
means  of  promoting  Christian  union,  380;  churches  authorized  to  "  modify  a 
form  and  rite"  of  Christ?  380;  views  of  De  Pressense  and  Professor  L.  L. 
Paine,  381,  382. 


APPENDIX. 

Note  I.  — Baptism  in  the  Episcopaij   Pbateb-Book  and  est  English 
HisTOET,  p.  385. 

Note  II.  —  Sitpposed  sites  of  -^non,  p.  389. 
Note  III. — Water-supply  of  Jerusalem,  p.  393. 
Note  rV.  —  Nudeness  in  patristic  baptisms,  p.  402. 
Note  V.  —  Locality  of  the  eunuch's  baptism,  p.  410. 
Note  VI.  —  Baptism  and  sponsors,  p.  412. 


NAMES  OF  PEESONS  AND  WORKS  CITEDr 


^s*** 


Abbot,  E. 

Abbott,  L. 

Abelard,  P. 

Achilles,  Tatius. 

Africanus,  Julius. 

Agnew,  S. 

Albofleda. 

Alciphron. 

Alcuin. 

Alexander,  J.  A. 

Alexander  of  Pherse. 

Alford,  H. 

Ambrose. 

Andrews,  E.  A. 

Angelo,  M. 

Ante-Nicene  Christian  Li- 
brary. 

Anthon,  C. 

Antony,  St. 

Apocrypha. 

Apostolical  Constitutions. 

Aquinas,  T. 

Aratus. 

Argilulfus. 

Aringhi,  P. 

Aristobulus. 

Aristophanes. 

Aristotle. 

Armstrong,  G.  D. 

Arnold,  A.  N. 

Arnoldi. 

Ashmore,  W. 

Athanasius. 

Augusti,  J.  C.  W. 

Augustine. 

Babington,  G. 

Balsamon,  T. 

Bannermann,  J. 

"  Baptist  Missionary  Maga- 
zine." 

"  Baptist  Quarterly." 

"  Baptist  Review." 

Baptismal  Tracts  for  the 
Times. 

"  Baptist  "Weekly." 

*'  Baptizein." 

Barclay,  J. 

Barclay,  J.  T. 

Barnabas. 

Barnes,  A. 

Baronius,  C. 

Basil. 

Basnage,  J. 

Baumgarten,  Professor. 


Baxter,  R. 

Beckwith,  J.  A. 

Bede,  the  Venerable. 

Bedell,  W. 

Beecher,  B. 

Bekker,  I. 

Bellarmine,  R. 

Bengel,  E.  G. 

Bengal,  J.  A. 

Bertoli,  P. 

Beveridge,  "W. 

Beza,  T. 

"  Bible  Union  "  Version. 

"  Bibliotheca  Sacra." 

Bickersteth,  E. 

Billroth,  G. 

Bindseil,  H.  E. 

Bingham,  J. 

Blackstone,  W. 

Blair,  H. 

Blake,  T. 

Bleek,  P. 

Bliss,  G.  R. 

Bloomfield,  S.  T. 

Bohringer,  P. 

Boldetti,  M.  A. 

Boniface,  Bishop. 

Book  of  Common  Prayer. 

Booth,  A. 

Bossuet,  J.  B. 

Bottari,  G.  G. 

Brenner,  F. 

Broadus,  J.  A. 

Brown,  D. 

Brownlow,  W.  R. 

Bucer,  M. 

Buckingham,  J.  S. 

Buckley,  T.  A. 

Buddeus,  J.  P. 

Bugatl,  G. 

BuUinger,  H. 

Bunsen,  C.  C.  J. 

Burgess,  A. 

Burrage,  H.  S. 

Bushnell,  H. 

Caldwell,  S.  L. 

Calmet,  A. 

Calov,  A. 

Calvin,  J. 

Campbell,  A. 

Campbell,  G. 

Carson,  A. 

Casaubon,  I. 

Castel. 


Cathcart,  W. 

Cave,  W. 

Celsus. 

Charles  II, 

Chase,  I. 

Chillitigworth,  "W. 

"  Christian  Review." 

Chrysostom,  J. 

Chrystal,  J. 

Ciampini,  J.  J. 

Cicero. 

Clarence,  Duke  of. 

Clark,  K.  G. 

Clark,  P. 

Clarke,  C. 

Clemens,  Romanus. 

Clement  of  Alexandria. 

Clough,  J.  E. 

Clevis. 

Colby,  H.  P. 

Coleman,  L. 

Conant,  T.  J. 

Conder,  C.  R. 

Congregational  Publishing 

Society. 
"  Congregationalist." 
Constantine,  Emperor. 
Conybeare,  W.  J. 
Cooke,  P. 
Cote,  W.  N". 
Court,  J. 
Cowley,  A. 
Cowper,  W. 
Cranmer,  T. 
Cra]3S,  J. 
Cremer,  H. 
Crosby,  A. 
Crosby,  T. 
Cusack,  M.  P. 
Cutting,  S.  S. 
Cjrprian. 

Cyril  of  Alexandria. 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem. 
Dagg,  J.  L. 
D'Agincourt,  S. 
Damasus,  Pope. 
D'AndiUy, 
Dante. 
Davidson,  S. 
De  la  Rue,  0. 
De  Rossi,  G.  B. 
De  Wettc,  W.  M.  L. 
Dindorf,  W. 
Dionysius,  Pseudo. 

xvU 


XVUl 


NAMES  OF  PERSONS  AND  WOBKS  CITED. 


Doddridge,  P. 
DoUinger,  J.  J.  I. 
"Dr.  G-rahgim." 
Dryden,  J. 
Duncker,  J.  Q-.  L. 
Duns  Scotus,  J. 
Dupin,  L.  E. 
Eadie,  J. 
Ebrard,  J.  H.  A. 
Edward  VI. 
Edwin,  King. 
Elizabeth,  Queen. 
Ellicott,  C.  J. 
Emmons,  K. 
Ephraem,  Syrus. 
EpiphaniuB. 
Erasmus,  D. 
Ernesti,  J.  A. 
Esclienburg,  J.  J. 
Eusebius,  P. 
Ewald,  G.  H.  A. 
Ewing,  G. 
Eairbairn,  P. 
EaircMld,  A.  G. 
Earnam,  J.  E. 
Fee,  J.  G. 
Fergusson,  J. 
Fidus. 
Fish,  H.  0. 
Fisher,  G.  P. 
Frederic,  I. 
Fritzsche,  C.  F.  A. 
Fuller,  S. 
Fulgentlus. 
Gale,  J. 
Garrucci,  R. 
Gear,  H.  L. 
Gelenius,  8. 
Gemara,  the. 
Gesenius,  W. 
Gill,  J. 
Gloag,  P.  J. 
"  G.  M.  S." 
Godet,  F. 
Godwin,  J.  H. 
Goode,  W. 
Gordon,  A.  J. 
Gregory  of  Antioch. 
Gregory  the  Great. 
Gregory  the  Monk. 
Gregory  Nazianzen. 
Gregory  Nyssa. 
Gregory  Thaumaturgus. 
Gregory  of  Tours. 
Griffin,  E.  D. 
Grimm,  C.  L.  W. 
Grotius,  H. 
Guericke,  H.  E.  F. 
Guise,  W. 
Gunning,  J.  H. 
Hackett,  H.  B. 
Hagenbach,  K.  R. 
Hague,  W. 
Hahn,  A. 
Hall,  E. 
Hall,  R. 
Halley,  R. 
Hammond,  H. 
Hampden,  R.  D. 
Harrison,  G. 
Harvey,  H. 
Hatfield,  R.  G. 
Heaton,  I.  E. 
Henderson,  E. 
Hengstenberg,  E.  Wt 


Henry  Vm. 

Hermann,  Archbishop. 

Hermas. 

Herodotus. 

Hibbard,  P.  G. 

Hincmar. 

Hippocrates. 

Hippolytus. 

Hitzig,  F. 

Hoadly,  B. 

Hobart,  J.  H. 

Hodges,  W. 

Hofling,  J.  W.  F. 

Hoffman,  J.  C.  K. 

Homer. 

Hook,  W.  F. 

Hooker,  R. 

Hopkins,  E. 

Horsey,  J. 

Hort,  F.  J.  A. 

Hovey,  A. 

Howson,  J.  S. 

Hudson,  J. 

Hutchings,  8. 

Huther,  J.  E. 

lamblichus. 

Ignatius. 

Ingham,  R. 

Innocent,  Pope. 

Irenseus. 

James  I. 

Jennings,  D. 

Jerome. 

Jeter,  J.  B. 

Jewett,  G.  B. 

Jewett,  M.  P. 

John  of  Damascus. 

John  of  Liittich. 

Johnson,  F. 

Johnson,  8. 

Josephus,  F. 

"  Journal  and  Messenger." 

Judson,  A. 

Julian,  the  Pelagian. 

Juvenal. 

Kahnis,  K.  F.  A. 

Keil,  C.  F. 

Kendrick,  A.  C. 

Eaepert,  H. 

Kip,  W.  I. 

Kitto,  J. 

Knapp,  G.  C 

Kuincel,  C.  G. 

Lachmann,  C. 

Lange,  L. 

Lange,  J.  P. 

Langhorne,  J. 

Lanneau,  Rev.  Mr. 

Lasher,  G.  W. 

Layard,  A.  H. 

Lawrence,  St. 

Lee,  A. 

Leo  the  Great. 

Leo,  Rabbi. 

Leverett,  P.  P. 

L'Estrange. 

Liddell  and  8cott. 

Lightfoot,  J. 

Lightfoot,  J.  B. 

Lincoln,  H. 

Lingard,  J. 

Livy. 

Lodge,  T. 

Loos,  C.  L. 

Lucke,  G.  C.  F. 


Lundy,  J.  P. 

Liinemann,  G. 

Luthardt,  C.  E. 

Luther,  M. 

Lynch,  W.  F. 

Mabillon,  J. 

McCoskry,  8.  A. 

Macknight,  J. 

Madison- Avenue  Lectures. 

Magnus. 

Maimonides,  M. 

Malcom,  H. 

Manly,  B. 

Manning,  S. 

Marchi,  J. 

Mark  of  Ephesng. 

Marriott,  W.  B. 

Martyr,  P. 

Matthies,  C.  8. 

MaundreU,  H. 

Maynard,  G.  H. 

Melmoth,  W. 

Merrill,  8.  M. 

Meyer,  H.  A.  W. 

Miller,  8. 

Mihnan,  H.  H. 

Milton,  J. 

Mishna,  the. 

Monica. 

"  Monthly  Review." 

Mozley,  J.  B. 

MUller,  J. 

Nast,  "W. 

Neander,  A. 

Nepos. 

' '  New  American  Cyclopedia." 

"  New-Englander." 

Noel,  B.  W. 

Norma. 

Northcote,  J.  S. 

Norton,  A. 

Novatian. 

Noyes,  G.  R. 

Olshausen,  H. 

Origen. 

Otto. 

Owen,  Dr.  J. 

Owen,  Rev.  J. 

Owen,  J.  J. 

Overall,  J. 

Paciaudus. 

Paine,  L.  L. 

Palladius. 

Pahner,  T.  R. 

Parmly,  E. 

Pascal,  B. 

Patrick,  8. 

Patrick,  8t. 

Paulinus  of  England. 

Paulinus  of  Milan. 

Paulinus  of  Tyre. 

Peck,  J.  M. 

Pendleton,  J.  M, 

Pengilly,  R. 

Pepper,  G.  D.  B. 

Perowne,  T.  T. 

Perret,  L. 

Persius. 

Perthes,  F.  M. 

Peters,  A. 

Philip  of  Macedon. 

Philo,  J. 

Pindar. 

Plato. 

Pliny. 


NAMES  OF  PEBSONS  AND  WOBKS  CITED. 


Tnx 


Plumptre,  E.  H. 

Plutarch. 

Polycarp. 

Poole,  M. 

Pope,  A. 

Popular  Commentaiy. 

Portable  Commentary. 

Potter,  J. 

Pressens^,  E.  de. 

Procter,  F. 

Pusey,  E.  B. 

Quintilla. 

Redepenning,  E.  R. 

Reiche,  J.  G. 

Reland,  H. 

Religious  Tract  Society. 

Remigius. 

Reuss,  E. 

Rice,  ISr.  L. 

Riddle,  M.  B. 

Ripley,  H.  J. 

Ritter,  C. 

Robertson,  P.  W. 

Robinson,  E. 

Robinson,  E.  G. 

Robinson,  R. 

Romanus. 

Rosenmiiller,  E.  F.  C. 

Rosenmiiller,  J.  Or. 

Rotherham,  J.  B. 

Rowland,  A.  J. 

Riickert,  L.  J. 

Ruflnus. 

Salmasius,  C. 

Samson,  G.  "W. 

Sarum  Manual. 

Schaff,  P. 

Schneckenburger,  M. 

Schleiermacher,  F. 

Schott,  D.  A. 

Scott,  T. 

Scott,  W. 

"  Scribner's  Monthly." 

Seabury,  S. 

Sears,  B. 

Selden,  J. 

Semisch,  C. 

Sepp,  J.  N. 

Septuagint,  the. 

SewelI,W. 

Shakspeare,  W. 

Shedd,  W.  G.  T. 

Sibylline  Oracles. 

Simpson,  F. 

Smith,  H.  B. 

Smith,  J.  P. 


Smith,  J.  T. 

Smith,  J.  W. 

Smith's  Christian  Antiquities. 

Smith's  Christian  Biography. 

Smith's    Dictionary    of    the 

Bible. 
Smith's    Greek    and   Roman 

Antiquities. 
Society,     American     Baptist 

Publication. 
Sophocles,  E.  A. 
Spurgeon,  C.  H. 
Speaker's  Commentary. 
Stacey,  J. 
St.  Celsus. 

"  Stanley,  Rev.  Charlea." 
Stanley,  A.  P. 
Stanley,  H.  M. 
Starck,  J.  A. 
Stearns,  J.  G.  D. 
Stephen,  Pope. 
Stier,  R. 
StilUngfleet,  E. 
Stone,  J.  S. 

Stourdza,  Alexander  de. 
Strabo,  the  geographer. 
Strabo  Walafrid. 
Strong,  A.  H. 
Stuart,  M. 
Suicer,  J.  K. 
Summers,  T.  O. 
Sylvester,  Pope. 
Tacitus. 
Talmud,  the. 
Taylor,  C. 
Taylor,  J. 
TertuUian. 
Thayer,  J.  H. 
Thelwall,  S. 
"  Theodore." 
Theodoret. 
"Theodosia  Ernest." 
Theophylaet. 
Tholuck,  A. 
Thomasius,  G. 
Thomson,  W.  M. 
Thorn,  W. 
Tillotson,  J. 
Tischendorf,  L.  F.  C. 
Titus,  the  emperor. 
"  T.  J.  M." 
Towerson,  G. 
Towne,  J.  H. 
Toy,  C.  H. 
Tregelles,  S.  P. 
Trench,  R.  C. 


Turner,  S.  H. 

Turretin,  F. 

Tyndale,  W. 

Usher,  J. 

Usteri,  L. 

Van  Ess,  L. 

Van  Lennep,  H.  J. 

Venema,  H. 

Virgil. 

Volkmar,  G. 

Von  Raumer,  K. 

Vossius,  G.  J. 

Vulgate,  The. 

Wall,  W. 

Wardlaw,  R. 

Warren,  C. 

"  Watchman." 

"  Watchman  and  Reflector." 

Waterland,  D. 

Webster's  Dictionary. 

Weiss,  B. 

Wesley,  J. 

Westcott,  B.  P. 

Wetstein,  J.  J. 

Whately,  R. 

Whiston,  W. 

Whitby,  D. 

White,  W. 

Whitsitt,  W.  H. 

Wiberg,  A. 

Wiesinger,  A. 

Wilberforce,  R.  I. 

William  in. 

Williams,  E. 

Williams,  G. 

Williams,  N.  M. 

Willmarth,  J.  W. 

Wilson,  C.  W. 

Wilson,  Bishop  D. 

Wilson,  J. 

Wilson,  Professor  B. 

Wilson,  W. 

Winer,  G.  B. 

Wise,  Rabbi. 

Withrow,  W.  H. 

Witsius,  H. 

Wolcott,  8. 

Wolff,  P. 

Wood,  J.  T. 

Woods,  L. 

Wordsworth,  O. 

Wright,  G.  F. 

Zeno,  Bishop. 

Zenophon. 

Zonaras. 

Zwingle,  XJ. 


^^=*^^-<4^,^ 


STUDIES  ON  THE  BAPTISMAL  QUESTION. 


CHAPTER  I. 

GENERAL   CHARACTERISTICS   OF   DR.  DALE's   "WORK  AND    "THEORY." 

JAMES  W.  DALE,  D.D.,  a  Presbj-terian  clergyman  of  Penn- 
sylvania, and  once  a  fellow-student  at  Andover  with  Professor 
Milo  P.  Jewett  and  the  late  lamented  Professor  H.  B.  Hackett, 
has  written  four  "tremendous"  volumes,  as  "The  Congregation- 
alist "  styles  them,  on  "  The  Usage  ot  Baptizo,"  respectively  enti- 
tled "Classic,"  "Judaic,"  "Johannic,"  "Christie  and  Patristic 
Baptism,"  numbering,  in  all,  some  eighteen  hundred  octavo  pages, 
and  foi-ming,  without  doubt,  the  hugest  work  that  has  ever  ap- 
peared on  this  subject. 

The  writings  of  Dr.  Dale  betray  a  good  deal  of  originalit}*,  in- 
genuity, intellectual  acuteness,  and  a  happ}^  art  of  "  putting  "  and 
suppressing  things,  so  useful  in  an  advocate.  They  show,  too,  an 
almost  unwearied  diligence,  and  a  vast  amount  of  research,  not 
alwaj's  thorough  and  critical,  as  we  shall  see.  He  possesses  also, 
as  one  may  conjecture,  the  faculty  of  iteration  to  a  marvellous 
degree,  "proving,"  according  to  one  of  his  complimentary^  testi- 
monials, "  a  point  ninety-nine  times  "  (or  asseverating  its  proof), 
"  and  still  jDroving  it  the  hundredth,  lest  some  one  should  fancy 
the  work  not  otherwise  quite  complete."  A  considerable  part  of 
his  first  volume  is  devoted  to  the  consideration  of  certain  synony- 
mous words  in  the  different  languages,  commonl}''  supposed  to  be 
related  in  meaning  to  haptizo;  such  as  "  dip,"  "plunge,"  "bmy," 
"whelm,"  "immerse,"  &c.,  in  English.  He  finds  "dip"  (hke 
hapto)  to  be  a  "feeble  word,"  of  "trivial  import,"  denoting  but 


6  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

a  "superficial  entrance  and  momentar}^  continuance;"  and  thus 
puts  it  in  meaning  world-wide,  yea,  even  "  heaven- wide,"  asunder 
from  baptizo  and  "immerse  ;  "  which  latter  words  "  never  take  out 
what  they  put  in."  In  speaking  of  the  baptisms  of  cups,  pots, 
&c.,  mentioned  in  Mark  vii.  4,  he  says,  that,  if  these  utensils  were 
put  into  the  water  by  baptizo  (or  immerse) ,  "  no  pro\ision  is  made 
for  taking  tjiem  out;  "  and,  on  the  truth  of  this  supposition,  he 
leaves  us  to  infer  that  there  they  are  in  the  water  to  this  day,  and 
there  they  wUl  remain  forever.  Surely  no  one  will  dare  to  immerse 
his  hand,  or  even  a  finger,  in  water,  after  this !  In  his  view,  we 
are  dippers,  or  diptists,  but  not  immersionists.  We  bapt,  or  dip, 
the  head  and  shoulders,  but  do  not  baptize,  or  immerse,  the  whole 
person  (which  would  be  "death  bj^  drowning  "),  or  any  part  of 
it.  Yet  the  blending  together  of  dip  and  immerse,  we  are  told, 
is  a  "Baptist  postulate,"  and  a  necessity  of  "the  theory."  ^  But, 
if  Baptists  have  erred  in  this  matter,  they  have  had  abundant 
company ;  for  not  a  Pedobaptist  lexicographer  or  author  can  be 
named  who  has  not  regarded  and  treated  these  words  as  substan- 
tial equivalents.  Yet  this  fact  is  almost  wholly  ignored  bj^  Dr. 
Dale,  and  "Baptist  writers"  alone  are  perpetually  charged  with 
thus  "confounding  things  which  differ."  There  is  no  excuse 
henceforth  for  their  doing  this  ;  and  we  hope  they  will  refrain,  not 
only  from  confounding  them,  but  even  from  mentioning  them  in 
the  same  connection !  This  large  discussion  of  synonjones  may 
be  useful  as  an  intellectual  study  or  diversion ;  but  it  has  no  direct 
and  decisive  bearing  on  the  point  in  question. 

Our  author  writes  with  general  good  humor,  and  a  fairly  Chris- 
tian spirit,  but  indulges,  it  must  be  confessed,  in  considerable 
unnecessar}"  and  disagi-eeable  gibing.  "You  rarel}^  meet,"  says 
Professor  J.  A.  Broadus   (in   "Baptist  Quarterly"  ^for  1875,  p. 

1  If  what  our  author  states  is  true,  —  that  "  Baptist  writers  have  neither 
unity  nor  consistency  in  their  interpretations,  whether  we  have  regard  to 
their  relations  one  to  another,  to  themselves,  or  to  the  principles  of  lan- 
guage,"—  what  becomes  of  ''the  theory"  of  Baptists,  and  of  the  "Bap- 
tist postulates  "  ?  One  chief  point  in  Dr.  Dale's  works  is  to  pit  Baptist 
authors  against  each  other,  and  to  show  up  their  inconsistencies  and  dis- 
agreements. No  Baptist  writer,  that  we  are  aware  of,  has  written  up  all  the 
disagreements  and  contradictions  of  Pedobaptist  authors  on  the  mode  and 
subjects  of  baptism;  yet  a  few  of  the  "variations"  of  Pedobaptism  may 
be  found  in  Ingham's  Hand-Book  on  Baptism,  and  Subjects  of  Baptism. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  7 

245),  "  with  any  thing  like  outbursts  of  honest  indignation  at  sup- 
posed perversions  of  truth,  or  lamentations  of  Christian  love  over 
the  errors  of  Christian  brethren ;  but  you  find  abundance  of 
skilfully  refined  satire,  of  taunts  and  courtly  gibes,  till  you  are 
reminded,  not  of  a  deep-souled  German,  or  a  downright  English- 
man, seeking  for  truth,  but  of  a  French  writer,  discussing  a  theory 
of  art  or  literature,  and  gracefully  mocking  at  his  adversaries." 
Still,  while  he  ridicules,  and,  as  his  friends  say,  "riddles,"  our 
Baptist  arguments  and  "figures"  (while  Jiis  ba2Jtizo  is  about  all 
"  figm'e"),  and  is  pretty  hard  on  some  of  our  writers,  especially 
Dr.  Carson,  "  the  philosopher  of  Tubbermore  "as  he  names  him, 
(with  special  emphasis,  doubtless,  on  the  antepenult!)  he  yet,  in 
the  main,  manifests  a  kindly  spirit,  and  several  of  his  denomina- 
tional opponents  he  praises  in  very  high  terms.  He  speaks  with 
enthusiasm,  especially,  of  the  eminent  Christian  character  and 
scholarship  of  m}^  revered  Newton  teachers,  the  lamented  Profess- 
ors Ripley  and  Hackett ;  and  acknowledges  without  stint  the 
superior  abilit}''  of  Dr.  Conant,  and  his  great  indebtedness  to  the 
labors  of  this  learned  author. 

The  work  of  Dr.  Dale  we  regard  as,  on  the  vfhole,  essentially 
and  strongly-  Baptistic  ;  and  we  are  glad  (in  one  sense)  that  he  Jias 
written  these  volumes.  In  his  apology  for  undertaking  this  "7w- 
quiry  into  the  Usage  of  Baptize,"  he  says,  "  The  treatment  of  the 
subject,  as  heretofore  conducted,  left  the  merits  of  the  case,  in 
some  respects  at  least,  clouded  with  uncertainty,  and  embarrassed 
with  perplexity."  If  Dr.  Dale  has  not  "  overthrown  the  Baptist 
(?)  theory  "  (of  "  dif)ping  "),  and  "  taken  the  city  of  waters,"  it 
is  not  his  fault.  If  he  has  not  successfully  defended  his  somewhat 
novel  and  peculiar  "  theorj-,"  neither  is  he  to  be  blamed.  He  can 
saj,  with  Hector,  "  Si  Pergama  dextra  defendi  possent,  etiam  hac 
defensa  fuissent."  He  offers  the  world  his  theorj'  or  ours  (in  sub- 
stance), and  gives  no  other  choice.  Near  the  close  of  his  fourth 
volume  he  says,  "An  object  wholly  within  loater,  without  limitation 
of  mode  in  effecting  such  condition,  or  of  time  in  abiding  in  such 
condition,  has  been  insisted  upon  throughout  this  Inquiry  as  a  ph3'S- 
ical  baptism."  And  again  he  says,  "  This  word  (haptizo)  prima- 
ril}'  makes  demand  for  the  intusposition  of  its  object  within  a  fluid 
element  by  any  competent  act,  moving  indifferently  the  object  or 
the  element,  without  limitation  of  time  as  to  the  continuance  in 


8  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

such  intusposition,"  &c.  "Its  import  is  vitally  dependent  upon 
and  governed  by  the  idea  of  intusposition  within  a  closely-investing 
element."  "The  demand  of  baptizo  is  for  intusposition."  The 
writings  of  this  author,  as  also  those  of  President  Beecher,  are 
bringing  things  to  a  definite  point  and  issue.  Not  much  longer 
shall  we  hear  of  sprinlding  and  pouring  as  definitions  of  baptizo. 
The  Boston  "Congregationalist,"  indeed,  has  recently  defined  bap- 
tism as  '■'■any  application  of  water;"  and  Christian  baptism,  as 
"  any  reverent  application  of  water  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity." 
Of  course,  then,  we  can  speak  of  baptizing  water  on  any  one,  as 
we  do  of  pouring  water  or  sprinlding  water.  But  this  as  never 
done,  and  never  can  be  done ;  nor  can  an  instance  be  shown  on 
any  classic  or  Scripture  page  where  baptism  was  performed  by  the 
digital  application  of  ivater.  And  so  we  are  not  surprised  that 
both  the  writers  just  named  utterly  discard  sprinkling  and  pouring 
as  specific  and  proper  definitions  of  baptizo.  That  baptizo  cannot 
primarily  and  properly  import  to  pour,  sprinkle,  or,  as  Beecher 
would  have  it,  to  "  purif}^,"  is  evident,  from  the  fact,  that,  in  its 
regimen,  it  is  not  necessarily,  though  it  is  generally,  connected  with 
water.  In  accordance  with  classical  usage,  one  can  baptize  a 
thing  in  a  permeable  solid  as  well  as  in  a  liquid,  or  can  baptize  in 
filth  and  pollution  as  well  as  in  pure  water.  Besides,  the  preposi- 
tions 071  or  upon,  which  naturally  follow  the  verbs  "  sprinkle"  and 
"  pour,"  can  never,  in  connection  with  element,  accompany'  baptizo. 
Some  one,  to  show  that  words  of  such  diverse  specific  import  as 
"  dip,"  "  pour,"  and  "  sprinkle,"  can  never  be  used  interchange- 
ably, and  that  one  word  (baptizo)  can  never  represent  them  all,  has 
given  to  Lev.  iv.  6,  7,  this  rendering :  "  And  the  priest  shall  pour 
[dip]  his  finger  in  the  blood,  and  shall  dip  [sprinkle]  of  the  blood 
seven  times  before  the  Lord,  and  shall  sprinkle  [pour]  all  the  blood 
at  the  bottom  of  the  altar."  No  one,  we  think,  will  contend  that 
all  these  words,  through  religious  usage,  have  changed  their  origi- 
nal meanings,  or  lost  all  reference  to  mode.  "  If  baptism,"  says 
Dr.  Sears  ("Defender  of  the  Faith,"  in  "Christian  Review," 
vol.  iii.  1838,  p.  98),  "means  ^  any  application  of  water,'  it 
would  indeed  have  puzzled  a  Greek  to  find  out  what  it  meant,  when 
used,  as  it  often  is,  of  a  ship.  How  could  he  divine  whether  it 
meant  that  a  vessel  was  wet  by  launching ;  or  that  it  was  washed 
extQrnally  by  the  waves,  or  internally  by  the   crew ;   or  that  it 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  9 

sprung  a  leak,  and  loet  the  cargo  ;  or  that  a  rain  wet  the  sails  and 
rigging  and  deck  ;  or  that  a  surge  swept  the  deck?  "  The  owner 
of  a  baptized  vessel  would  doubtless  have  been  verj-  glad  to  think 
that  only  its  figure-head  had  been  sprinkled  by  a  slight  dash  of  the 
spray !  President  Beecher,  as  we  have  intimated,  discards  sprin- 
kling, and  gives  us,  in  the  meanings  of  baj)tizo,  our  choice  between 
immerse,  in  secular  use,  and  ^^piirify,"  regardless  of  mode,  in 
rehgious  usage.  Dr.  Dale  defines  baptism,  as  its  ground-meaning, 
to  be  an  "  intusposition  "  (a  within-putting  or  enveloping)  "for 
an  indefinite  period  in  some  enveloping  fluid  or  closely-investing 
medium."  "  Baptizo  demands  intusposition,"  "  withinness  ;  "  and 
"  the  forms  of  action  "  (involved  in  sprinkling  and  pouring)  "  are 
not  its  most  natural  servitors."  "A  condition  of  envelopment  was 
original!}'  its  grand,  sole  characteristic."  "  Intusposition  within, 
a  closety-investing  medium  [is]  essential  to  the  primarj-  use."' 
"  To  make  baptizo  mean  to  pour  or  sprinkle  is  an  error,"  &c.  la. 
his  endeavor  to  find  an  equivalent  word  in  English,  such  terms  as. 
"whelm,"  "sink,"  and  ^''droion"  (!)  are  mentioned  as  having 
special  claim  ;  while  to  "  inn  "  or  to  "  deep,"  if  we  had  such  verbs,, 
"would  serve  well  as  duplicates."  He,  however,  selects  the  un- 
English  term  "  merse"  as  the  best  representative  for  baptizo,  and 
as  most  accordant  with  its  fundamental  meaning  ;  and  this  word, 
with  an  occasional  prefix,  he  invariably  uses  in  his  translation  of 
more  than  one  hundred  classic  examples.  "What  astonishment 
one  must  feel,  who  has  alv^ays  been  taught  that  baptizo  means  tO' 
sprinkle,  when  he  scans  Dr.  Dale's  "  Classic  Baptism,"  and  finds 
"whelm,"  and  "sink,"  and  "drown,"  and  "merse"  (Anglice, 
"  immerse  ")  staring  him  full  in  the  face,  on  almost  ever}-  page  as 
it  were,  as  the  chosen  representatives  of  baptizo! 

But  while  the  primar}^  import  of  baptizo,  and  so  of  "  immerse," 
is  "  to  intuspose  (i.e.,  envelop  on  all  sides  by,  ordinarily,  a  fluid 
element)  without  limitation  as  to  depth  of  position,  time  of  con- 
tinuance, force  in  execution,  or  mode  of  accomplishment,"  or, 
more  briefly,  "  to  merse,  and  specificallj- to  droion"  (at  the  same 
time  expressing,  in  our  author's  view,  no  specific  act,  but  "con- 
dition" only  or  chieflj'),  a  secondary  and  very  diflTerent  meaning, 
has  been  discovered  by  Dr.  Dale  ;  and  this  secondary  meauiug,  we 
are  told,  has  wholly  displaced  the  primary;  so  that,  "if,  in  the 
development  of  language,  any  word  ever  lost  an  element  (in  this. 


10  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

case,  the  condition  of  envelopment)  which  was  originally  its  grand, 
sole  characteristic,  such  a  word  is  bajotizo."  How,  now,  shall  we 
get  out  of  this  intusposition  and  envelopment?  Well,  President 
Beecher,  as  we  have  above  intimated,  and  more  recently  Pro- 
fessor J.  H.  Godwin  of  London,  and  Dr.  Edward  Wilhams  long 
before  either  of  them,  have  extracted  the  spiritual  essence  of 
baptizo,  and  sublimated  the  word  into  a  purifying  influence.  And 
so  Dr.  Dale,  working  on  the  same  line,  has  volatilized  it  to  a  still 
higher  degree,  even  into  a  general  controlling  influence.  And 
surely  the  powers  of  man  in  etherealizing  this  word  can  no  farther 
go.  The  history  of  this  change  is  given :  First  (which  might 
be  last).,  haptizo  denoted  intusposition  without  influence  (e.g.,  a 
stone  put  within  water  is  unchanged)  ;  second,  intusposition  with 
influence  ;  third,  intusposition  for  influence  ;  and,  fourth,  influ- 
ence WITHOUT   intusposition.^     It  will  hence   be   seen   that   new 

1  Dr.  Whittsitt,  in  Ms  review  of  Dale's  Classic  Baptism,  in  the  Baptist 
Quarterly  for  April,  1877v  shows  how  conveniently  this  "  influence  theory" 
may  be  applied  to  the  common  affairs  of  life.  It  seems  that  Richard  Eoe 
has  given  a  note  to  John  Doe,  promising  to  pay  him  a  thousand  dollars, 
value  received.  Richard  is  troubled  about  the  inconvenient  word  "pay;" 
"but  he  adopts  the  Dale  process,  cuts  off  the  active  voice  of  the  verb,  and 
:says,  "Now,  'pay'  is  a  verb  of  condition  exclusively,  and  may  be  defined 
in  these  terms :  '  Pay,  in  primary  use,  expresses  condition  characterized  by 
comiilete  satisfaction,  without  expressing,  and  with  absolute  indifference  to, 
the  form  of  the  act  by  which  such  satisfaction  may  be  effected,  as  also  with- 
out other  limitations.'  Thereupon  Richard  Roe  makes  a  visit  to  his  cred- 
itor John  Doe,  and  insists  upon  the  return  of  his  note,  because  the  creditor 
.John  Doe  is  now  in  a  state  of  satisfaction.  Doe,  on  the  contrary,  objects 
that  he  is  not  in  the  state  of  satisfaction,  and  that  he  cannot  be  brought 
into  the  state  of  satisfaction,  until  Roe  performs  the  act  of  satisfaction,  which 
will  consist  in  paying  the  money  down;  but  he  assures  Richai-d,  at  the  same 
time,  that  he  does  not  care  any  thing  about  the  '  form '  or  '  mode '  of  the  act, 
isince  a  check  or  order  would  be  quite  as  agreeable  to  him  as  the  currency. 

"  On  hearing  this,  Richard  Roe  enters  once  again  into  communion  with 
his  spirit,  and  passes  a  time  muttering  such  words  as  '  satisfaction  without 
influence,'  'satisfaction  with  influence,'  'satisfaction  for  influence;'  until 
finally,  arriving  at  '  influence  without  satisfaction,'  he  finds  he  has  caught 
an  idea  which  will  relieve  him  of  all  his  troubles ;  that  he  has  grasped  the 
■*  master-key '  of  the  situation.  Accordingly,  engaging  the  best  band  in  the 
city,  he  goes  and  serenades  Mr.  Doe,  veiy  greatly  to  the  delight  of  Doe  and 
his  entire  family.  But  next  morning  he  takes  the  earliest  opportunity  tc 
inform  his  long-suffering  creditor  that  the  act  of  satisfaction  is  not,  as  that 
gentleman  supposes,  essential  to  the  condition  of  satisfaction;   that  the 


STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM.  11 

definitions,  and  such  as  have  been  unknown  to  the  lexicons,  are 
now  necessarj''.  And,  Jirst,  "  baptizo  expresses  any  complete  change 
of  condition,  by  whatever  agency  effected,  or  in  whatsoever  way 
applied."  A  second  definition  is,  "Whatever  exercises  a  con- 
trolling influence  over  its  object  baptizes  that  object  by  trans- 
ferring it  from  one  state  or  condition  to  another."  As  amplified 
on  the  closing  page  of  the  first  volume  it  read  thus  :  ' '  Whatever 
is  capable  of  thoroughly  changing  the  character,  state,  or  condition 
of  any  object,  is  capable  of  baptizing  that  object,  and,  by  such 
change  of  character,  state,  or  condition,  does  in  fact  baptize  it." 
After  such  a  lucid  definition,  we  need  not  be  surprised  when  assured 
that  "  one  drop  of  prussic  acid  is  as  thoroughly  competent  to  effect 
a  baptism  secondary  (perhaps  the  more  common  form  of  baptism 
expressed  by  the  Greeks)  as  is  an  ocean  to  effect  a  baptism 
primary,"  Aristotle  speaks  of  the  tides  as  baptizing  the  sea- 
coasts  ;  but  Dr.  Dale,  we  suppose,  would  make  the  moon  baptize, 
that  is,  "  controlUngly  influence,"  the  tides.  According  to  our 
author,  Christ  in  the  wilderness,  being  himself  in  the  H0I3"  Spirit, 
did  so  far  control  the  Evil  One  by  the  same  Spirit,  that  we  may 
with  proprietj'  sa^^  that  "  Christ  did  baptize  Satan  in  the  Holy 
Ghost."  Indeed,  in  accordance  with  the  above  definitions.  Dr. 
Dale,  in  rendering  English  into  Greek,  would  express  every  possi- 
ble instance  of  thorough  change,  control,  or  influence,  by  baptizo. 
If  he  did  so,  he  would  use  this  word  very  much  oftener  than  the 
Greeks  themselves  ever  did.  But,  after  the  publication  of  "  Classic 
Baptism,"  it  was  found  that  even  the  revised  and  "final"  defini- 
tion was  too  inexact.  There  were  found  to  be  radical  changes 
constantly  going  on,  in  the  heavens  above,  and  in  the  earth 
beneath,  in  the  ocean,  in  the  fire,  in  the  stomach  (!),  by  the 
tongue,  pen,  and  hand  of  man,  and  in  other  ways  too  numerous 
for  man  to  conceive.     In  fact,  our  little  globe  was  in  danger  of 


latest  authorities  affiiin  that  the  word  '  pay '  in  the  note  of  hand  for  one 
thousand  dollars  expresses  'influence  loithout  saiisfaction; '  that,  by  his 
handsome  serenade,  he  has  already  produced  an  '  influence '  on  the  highly 
susceptible  spirit  of  Doe;  and  that  he,  as  a  matter  of  course,  demands  the 
surrender  of  his  note.  Mr.  Doe  speaks  of  an  appeal  to  the  courts  of  justice: 
but  Roe  coolly  informs  him  that  there  is  no  hope  of  redress  from  that  quar- 
ter; for  all  the  courts  have  adopted  the  new  Dale  process,  — the  same  which 
he  has  himself  just  employed  with  such  signal  advantage." 


12  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

being  deluged  by  these  "  baptisms  of  influence."  And  so,  in  the 
succeeding  Yolume,  our  author  gives  us  in  extenso  a  full  and  final 
(?)  definition:  "  Whatever  ac^  is  capable  of  thoroughlj^  changing 
the  character,  state,  or  condition  of  any  object,  by  placing  it  in  a 
state  of  physical  intusposition,"  (the  Italics  are  the  author's;  but 
what  becomes  of  the  cases  of  intusposition  vnthov.t  influence?) 
"  is  capable  of  baptizing  that  object ;  and  "  (Dr.  Dale  might  have 
said  or;  but  he  is  opposed  to  shifting  from  one  word  and  meaning 
to  another,  and  is  exceedingly  perturbed  when  our  writers  define 
haptizo  with  two  or  more  words,  as  witness  his  frowns  on  Dr. 
Carson's  "dip  or  immerse,"  and  Professor  Conant's  "whelm," 
"imbathe,"  "plunge,"  &c.,  although  he  himself  denies  that  any 
one  word  like  "dip,  and  nothing  but  dip,"  can  fully  express  its 
meaning,  and  employs,  indeed,  quite  as  many  defining  terms  as 
all  our  writers  put  together)  ' '  whatever  influence  is  capable  of 
thoroughly  changing  the  character,  state,  or  condition  of  any  object, 
hy  pervading  it,  and  making  it  subject  to  its  own  characteristics,  is 
capable  of  baptizing  that  object ;  and  by  such  changes  of  character, 
state,  or  condition,  these  acts  and  influences  do,  in  fact,  baptize 
their  objects."  Truly  "  baptism  is  a  mj'riad-sided  word,"  and 
"has  a  legion  of  servitors."  "The  seven  wise  men  of  Greece 
could  not  declare  the  nature  or  mode  of  any  given  baptism  by  the 
naked  help  of  baptizo."  It  is  as  indefinite  in  act  (so  one  of  Dr. 
Dale's  followers  writes  to  me)  as  is  the  word  "  scare."  What  a 
word  for  our  Saviour  to  put  into  the  great  Commission,  —  His  law 
for  the  church  in  aU  ages !  —  a  word  whose  act  will  drown  any 
living  man  in  the  waters  (for  "no  baptism  is  self-ending,"  "a 
baptism  has  no  outcome  to  it  "),  or  whose  controlling  and  assimi- 
lating influence  will  perform  an}'  one  of  "ten  thousand"  diflerent 
things  in  as  many  difi'erent  ways,  but  exactly  which,  or  what,  or 
how,  the  Omniscient  One  alone  can  tell.  Is  not  this  enough  to 
condemn  utterly  and  forever  the  novel  "  theory"  of  Dr.  Dale? 

"  Ingenuit}^,"  says  Carson,  "  may  put  a  false  system  plausibly 
together  ;  but  no  ingenuity  can  give  it  the  sohdity  and  life  of  the 
tnith." 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  13 


CHAPTER  II. 


COMPLIMENTART  TESTIMONIALS. 


ON  finishing  the  reading  of  "  Classic  Baptism,"  our  first 
thought  was  this :  Why,  this  entu'ely  does  away  with  the 
gi'eat  initial  ordinance  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  and  lands  us  into 
Quakerism !  For  what  can  effect  a  completer  change,  or  exert  a 
more  powerfully  "  controlling  influence,"  than  the  gospel  of  faith, 
believed,  and  received  into  the  heart?  Surely  the  "  discipling 
all  nations"  will  of  itself  baptize  those  disciples.  Our  second 
thought  was  this  :  that,  if  Dr.  Dale  introduces  a  baptismal  water- 
rite  into  the  New  Testament,  such  water-rite  must  be,  on  Ms  show- 
ing, a  needless  thing,  if  not  altogether  an  impertinence.  We  shall 
see  hereafter  what  he  has  done. 

And  here  we  would  stop  and  ask  if  it  is  for  such  a  method  of 
getting  rid  of  a  proper  water-baptism,  and  if  it  is  for  this  result, 
that  the  most  prominent  scholars  and  writers,  erudite  professors, 
and  renowned  clerg3TQen  of  the  Pedobaptist  denominations,  have 
seemingly  exhausted  the  resources  of  the  English  language  to 
find  words  adequate  to  express  their  admiration  of  this  ' '  wonder- 
ful," "extraordinary,"  "marvellous,"  "masterly,"  "  scholarty," 
"exhaustive,"  "decisive,"  "incomparable,"  "overwhelming," 
"  irrefutable,"  "  unanswerable  "  work,  "  this  standard  of  reference 
for  all  time,"  this  "  Blucher  at  Waterloo,"  this  "bomb-shell  in 
the  Baptist  camp."  ^    If  Dr.  Dale's  views  are  accepted,  and  car- 

1  Not  all  the  Pedobaptist  scholars,  however,  are  so  eulogistic  over  this 
work.  A  reviewer  of  Dale's  Classic  Baptism  (in  the  New-Englander  for 
1867,  p.  151,  seq.),  while  praising  two  or  three  points  in  his  work,  severely 
criticises  the  spirit  of  the  book,  and  utterly  condemns  his  "  controlling  influ- 
ence "  theory.  The  cfitic  avers  that  the  author,  in  the  treatment  of  his 
subject,  is  "too.  intensely  controversial;"  that  "he  has  his  antagonist  always 
before  him ;  and,  like  Homer's  hei-oes,  Avhen  he  gives  a  good  blow  or  thrust  he 


14  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

ried  out  in  practice,  it  will  be  found  that  other  theories  than  that 
of  the  Baptists  will  be  "  overthrown,"  and  "  riddled  through  and 
through ; ' '  that  many  another  ' '  bottom ' '  than  that  of  ' '  the  Bap- 
tist tub  "  will  be  "  knocked  out ;  "  and  that  basin,  as  well  as  bap- 
tistery, will  he  overturned  and  demoUshed.  Still  this  "unique" 
and  really  ingenious  and  important  work  will  be  a  standard  for 
curious  reference  in  this  controversy  for  many  generations,  or  even 
a  chiliad  of  j^ears,  should  the  world  and  this  controversy  last  so 
long. 

Since  the  publication  of  these  volumes  (the  last  in  1874),  tJiree 

breaks  out  into  loud  triumph  over  the  prostrate  foe."  "A  mere  elimination 
of  the  passages  in  which  he  triumphs  over  the  inconsistencies  and  absurdi- 
ties of  Baptist  critics  would  go  far  to  effect  the  desired  reduction ' '  in  the 
size  of  his  work.  But  "the  great  defect"  of  the  book,  in  the  critic's 
opinion,  is  the  author's  "unnatui'al  and  arbitrary"  treatment  of  the  figura- 
tive uses  of  words;  seeing,  for  example,  in  such  phrases  as  "immersed  in 
ignorance,"  "immersed  by  grief,"  &c.,  "no  mersion  either  in  fact  or 
figni'e,"  thus  completely  destroj'ing  the  force  and  beauty  of  these  expres- 
sions. "  Very  few,"  he  thinks,  "  will  agree  with  the  author  of  this  work  in 
the  extent  to  which  he  assumes  a  complete  obliteration  of  primary  mean- 
ings, and  a  consequent  loss  of  figurative  character."  In  noticing  Dr.  Dale's 
translation  of  the  jugglers'  command,  Baptison  seauton  eis,  &c.  ("Merse 
thyself  [going]  to  the  sea"),  he  gives  his  opinion,  that,  even  with  this  ren- 
dering, the  word  "merse"  (or  iromerse)  should  be  taken  in  its  "primary 
and  ordinary  sense,"  and  complains  that  the  author  does  not  teU  how  the 
superstitious  man  was  to  influence  himself  at  the  sea,  whether  (without 
intusposition)  by  sprinlding,  by  washing  of  hands,  by  drinking  sea-water,  or 
by  "sculling  "  and  "  clam-baking  "  !  He  also  thinks  it  woiild  be  an  act  of 
disobedience  in  a  boy,  if,  when  told  to  baptize  or  immerse  a  kitten  to  destroy 
her,  he  should,  in  order  to  produce  a  "controlling  destructive  influence," 
hack  her  to  pieces,  or  roast  her  over  a  slow  fire.  And,  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  Dr.  Dale  makes  bapiizo  and  "  immerse"  so  nearly  synonymous  in  their 
primary  and  secondary  meanings,  the  reviewer  fears  "  that  the  Baptist 
enemy  may  take  advantage  of  this  to  murmur,  with  the  little  breath  our 
author  has  left  him,  'Baptizing,  then,  is  immersing,  and  immersing  is  baptiz- 
ing !' "  Yet  ''thirty  colleges,  universities,  and  theological  seminaries,  say 
the  Baptist  theory  is  overthrovjn"  !  And,  from  Rev.  J.  G.  D.  Stearns's  later 
work  on  this  subject,  »we  learn  that  the  number  of  such  institutions  has 
been  augmented  to  "  forty;"  and  perhaps,  at  the  time  of  this  present  writ- 
ing, it  may  have  reached  fifty.  To  us,  the  most  interesting  part  of  Dale's 
work  were  the  complimentary  notices  or  testimonials  at  the  end  of  each 
volume;  but  we  cannot  help  feeling  that  their  interest  would  have  been 
greatly  augmented  had  his  publisher  quoted  somewhat  largely  from  the 
New-Englander. 


STUDIES  OJV  BAPTISM.  15 

different  authors,  depending  more  or  less  on  Dr.  Dale's  treatise, 
have  akeady  written  on  the  same  side  of  the  question.  Rev. 
Samuel  Ilutchings  of  Orange,  N.J.  (in  his  "Mode  of  Christian 
Baptism  ") ,  in  illustrating  the  meaning  of  classic  baptism,  depends 
entirely  on  Dr.  Dale.  Rev.  Isaac  E.  Heaton  of  Fremont,  Neb., 
in  his  Uttle  work  entitled  "  New  and  Decisive  Eiidence  of  the 
Mode  of  Baptism,"  (just  as  though  Dr.  Dale  had  not  decided  it !) 
does  not  enter  upon  any  explanation  of  classic  usage,  but  merely 
refers  the  reader  to  Dr.  Dale  and  others  on  this  subject.  A  third 
work,  "  The  Meaning  and  Power  of  Baptism,"  just  published  by 
Rev.  J.  G.  D.  Stearns  of  Zumbrota,  Minn.,  is,  in  the  main,  but 
an  epitome  of  Dr.  Dale's  works.  Our  author,  we  believe,  feels 
somewhat  hurt,  or  at  least  surprised,  that  his  works  have  not  been 
more  fully  and  extensivel}^  noticed  by  Baptist  writers.  While 
some  have  regarded  our  silence  as  arising  from  a  conviction  that 
his  "  theory  "  and  arguments  are  indeed  "  irrefutable,"  that  they 
have  "  taken  the  ground  or  rather  the  water  from  under  us,  and 
left  us  stranded,"  we  therefore  feel  justified  in  subjecting  this 
"  theory  "  to  still  further  examination  (whether  we  shall  "  fatally 
brain "  it  or  not  depends  somewhat  upon  the  question  of  its 
having  a  brain)  ;  and  there  is  no  such  "despair"  on  our  part, 
as  3^et,  that  we  "  cannot  logically  continue  the  controvers3^ " 


16  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM, 


CHAPTER  ni. 

A   DALE    (J.    W.)    OVERWHELMED. 

THIS  is  a  case  of  se-baptism,  —  of  self-overwhelming.  Dr. 
Dale,  burdening  himself  with  baptizo,  has  gone  down  so 
deep,  and  has  staid  so  long  under  water,  that,  to  speak  the  truth, 
we  have  but  little  hope  of  his  recover3\  And  what  adds  to  our 
regret  is,  that  none  of  his  denominational  associates  and  friends 
have  taken  the  least  pains  to  rescue  him  from  his  watery  ' '  intus- 
position ;  "  but  they  have  rather  rejoiced  at  his  feat,  declaring  it 
wholly   "unique,"    "wonderful,"    "exhaustive,"    and    "  over- 

"WHELMmG." 

In  his  first  volumes  he  seems  to  have  expressed  some  hope,  or 
at  least  a  possibilit}'',  of  his  emerging  again  to  our  upper  air  and 
the  light  of  the  sun.  He  said,  indeed,  that  "  baptize  wiU  put  a 
man  into  water,  but  it  never  did  and  never  will  take  him  out ; ' ' 
that  it  ' '  intusposes  its  object  within  a  fluid  element,  without  pro- 
viding for  its  removal,  never  taldng  out  what  it  puts  in;"  and 
that  "immersion  in  water,  of  its  own  force,  uninterfered  with, 
[will]  drown  any  li^dng  man."  "Immersion  in  water  deprives 
of  life  any  human  being."  But  he  puts  in  here  and  there  a  pro- 
viso,—  an  "if,"  or  a  "nevertheless;"  and  so,  wliile  he  states 
that  baptizo  ' '  never  contemplates  the  removal  of  its  object  from 
the  condition  in  which  it  has  placed  it,"  he  j-et  declares  that 
' '  there  is  nothing  in  the  word  to  prevent  its  object  from  being 
immediate^  taken  out  of  the  water."  "  Mersionis  not  necessarily 
of  prolonged  duration."  "  A  person  immersed  in  water  need  not 
of  necessit}^  be  drowned."  "  There  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  a 
mersion  which  requires  that  it  should  be  protracted."  It  may  be 
"most  brief  in  its  continuance."  Help  may  come  from  foreign 
sources  ;  and  in  this  way,  or  by  some  happy  "  accident,"  one  may 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  17 

be  rescued  from  the  deep  baptismal  waters.  So  we  read,  that, 
"in  mersion,  brevity  of  continuance  is  an  accident  not  belong- 
ing to  the  state."  The  doctor  evidently  would  not  fear  to  enter 
the  waters  with  the  lighter  word  bapto  ("to  dip"),  for  this 
' '  always  ( ?)  takes  out  promptly  what  it  puts  in ;  "  and  in  this 
case  he  would  expect  a  speedy  emersion.^  But  "there  is  a  sort 
of  mersion  connected  with  the  modal  act  to  dip,"  and  there  is 
sometimes  an  "  accidental  accord  between  a  dipping  and  an  in- 
tusposition  "  of  brief  duration. 

What  a  pity  that  our  author,  who  has,  to  use  Shakspeare's  lan- 
guage, "a  kind  of  alacrit}'  in  sinking,"  could  not  have  imagined 
his  baptismal  mersion  to  partake,  accidentally  or  otherwise,  more 
largely  of  this  more  superficial  and  transient  character !  For, 
turning  now  to  Dr.  Dale's  fourth  volume,  we  see  that  he  has  lost 
all  hope  of  emergence.  He  hints  at  no  foreign  aid,  no  lucky 
accident,  which  can  help.  There  seems  to  be  neither  plank  nor 
straw  to  which  he  can  reach  up  and  cling.  More  than  a  score  of 
times  he  explicitl}^  declares  the  fact  of  impending  death,  —  "  death 
b}'-  drowning."  And  this  is  the  verdict  which  he  as  coroner  would 
render  in  every  case  of  human  immersion, — ^most  assuredly  in 
every  case  of  proper  ritual  baptism !     Nevertheless,  we  stiU  feel 

1  Dr.  Dale  says  that  "  a  dipping  kills  nobody."  "  Men  are  not  drowned 
by  a  dipping."  We  grant,  of  course,  tliat  dipping  generally  denotes  a  brief 
immersion,  but  consequently  maintain  that  it  does  denote  immersion,  and 
is  never  accomplished  without  it.  Accordingly,  we  hold,  that,  as  immersion 
does  not  ordinarily  prove  fatal,  so  a  "dipping"  may  sometimes  be  destruc- 
tive of  life.  If  a  man  were  dipped  very  deep  in  the  water,  he  would  not 
be  likely  to  survive;  certainly  he  could  not  survive  a  repetition  of  such 
dippings:  and  it  would  make  but  little  difference  with  him  whether  he 
died  through  repeated  baptisms,  as  Aristobulus  (of  whom  Josephus  makes 
mention)  did,  or  through  repeated  dippings.  So,  too,  if  there  were  any 
means  of  wholly  bapting,  or  dipping,  a  ship  into  and  under  water,  it  would 
probably  be  as  surely  lost  as  though  it  had  been  baptized.  Is  it  a  gross 
impropriety  of  speech  to  say  that  a  man  may  dip  a  tjiing  under  water,  and 
lose  it,  or  leave  it  there  ?  Professor  Kendrick,  in  his  critique  of  Dale's 
Classic  Baptism  (in  Baptist  Quarterly  for  April,  1869),  quotes  this  passage 
from  the  poe-t  Aratus:  "But  if  the  sun  should  dip  himself  (baptoi),  without 
clouds,  into  the  western  flood,"  &c. ;  and  thereon  observes,  "It  {bapto) 
does  not  undertake  to  bring  back  the  sun  from  his  western  '  dip.'  It  leaves 
him  to  find  his  way  as  well  as  he  can  around  to  his  oriental  emersion;" 
which  is  surely  a  case  of  long-protracted  dipping.  And  what  about  the 
"  dip"  of  the  needle,  and  of  rock  strata ? 


18  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

inclined  to  attempt  Ms  rescue,  even  witli  the  aid  of  baptizo;  thougli 
now,  for  a  few  moments,  we  are  compelled  to  leave  him  uttering 
the  despairing  yet  determined  cry  (recorded,  for  correction,  in 
some  of  our  school-books),  "  I  will  be  drowned,  and  nobody  shall 
help  me!" 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  19 


CHAPTER  IV. 

WATER-BAPTISM    NOT   A   DROWNING. 

TEMPORA  MUTANTUR,"  says  Professor  Kendrick  in  his 
re^dew of  Dale's  "Classic  Baptism "  (in  "The  Baptist  Quar- 
terly") :  "the  old  arguments  are  becoming  strangely  antiquated. 
Once  we  had  to  resist  the  plea  for  too  little  water :  now  the  demand 
for  too  much.  Once  we  had  to  prove  that  baptizo  could  not  legiti- 
mately sprinkle  its  subjects :  now  we  are  put  to  our  wits'  end  to 
prove  that  it  will  not  necessarily  drown  them."  Years  since,  Dr. 
Carson  had  to  say  of  some  of  his  opponents,  that,  "when  they 
could  not  deny  that  the  word  denotes  to  dip,  they  endeavor  to 
make  it  more  than  a  dipping."  One  of  those  whom  Dr.  Carson 
had  in  mind  was  the  inventor  of  poptizo,  or  the  "  pop  "  theory  of 
baptism,  Greville  Ewing,  who  asks,  "  Shall  we  illustrate  the  office 
of  John  the  Baptist,  and  of  the  apostles  and  evangelists  of  Christ, 
by  the  work  of  j)rovidential  destruction,  or  that  of  murderers?" 
' '  These  examples  [of  Classic  baptizo']  imply  ...  a  continued  and 
permanent  immersion,  a  remaining  under  water."  They  are  cases 
' '  not  of  voluntary"  plunging,  but  of  fatal  sinking. ' '  And  Dr.  Hender- 
son, whom  Carson  likewise  reviews, makes  affirmation,  that,  "when 
baptizo  plainl}^  signifies  the  submersion  of  the  whole  bod}^,  it  con- 
vej's  at  the  same  time  the  idea  that  the  submersion  was  permanent ; 
i.e.,  that  the  body  thus  submerged  sunli  to  rise  no  more."  More 
recentlj^  Rev.  Philippe  Wolff  of  Geneva,  Switzerland,  has  declared, 
that,  "  when  baptizo  has  the  meaning  of  immerse,  it  implies  a  per- 
manent submersion,  and  means,  sink  under  water,  and  keep  there  ; 
that  is  to  sa}',  drown."  Professor  J.  H.  Godwin,  who  advocates 
the  purifying  theory  of  baptizo,  yet  strives  to  drown  all  who  are  clas- 
sically baptized.  Who  could  have  guessed  that  droivning  could  ever 
have  given  rise  to  the  idea  of  puilfication  ?     The  di'owning  %'iews 


20  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

of  Dr.  Dale  have  already-  been  given.  On  the  last  leaf  but  one  in 
his  fourth  and  last  volume,  he  asseverates  that  the  baptizing  of  a 
human  being  into  water  is  "death  by  drowning."  Were  it  not  for 
this  "unlimited  continuance,"  this  fatal  sinking,  which  Dr.  Dale 
finds  in  water-baptism,  we  beheve  his  views  and  practice  would 
wholly  accord  with  our  own  as  to  the  "  mode." 

The  principal  evidence  in  support  of  a  necessary  drowning  in 
water-baptism  is  found,  of  course,  in  those  classic  examples  which 
speak  of  ships  sinking  and  of  men  drowning  in  such  baptisms  ; 
instances  of  which,  especially  of  the  former  kind,  are  indeed  quite 
numerous.  Still  the  general  consent  of  mankind  affirms  that  mil- 
lions have  been  baptized  in  water,  or  immersed,  who  have  not  lost 
their  lives  ;  and  this  should  be  a  sufficient  refutation  of  ' '  the  ine^d- 
table  drowning  "  theory.  Who  has  not  heard  of  Naaman's  seven- 
fold baptism,  unattended  with  fatal  suffocation  (2  Kings  v.  14)  ? 
and  of  the  "  threefold  sinking  down  and  coming  up,"  the  ter  mer- 
gimur,  the  trine  immersion,  of  the  patrists,  or  Christian  fathers, 
which  on  this  theory  would  be  an  utter  impossibility  ?  Whether 
the  Septuagint  translators  rightl}^  rendered  the  Hebrew  original  or 
not  in  2  Kings  v.  14,  they  evidently  did  not  suppose  that  baptizo 
denoted  "unlimited  continuance,"  and  always  ended  in  a  "fatal 
sinking."  In  regard  to  ships  (and  such  like  heavy  and  lifeless  ob- 
jects) ,  we  should  naturally  suppose,  that,  if  the}^  were  baptized  by 
being  capsized  or  scuttled,  they  would  soon  sink  and  be  lost ;  though 
one  Greek  writer  speaks  as  if  a  baptized  ship  might  be  saved  by 
"the  pro^ddence  of  God"  (C.  49).  [In  these  and  the  following 
figures  we  refer  the  reader  to  the  Classic  Examples  as  numbered 
and  translated  by  Professor  Conant  in  his  "  Baptizein,"  —  a  book 
which  is,  or  should  be,  in  the  hands  of  every  Christian  minister  and 
intelligent  la3-man.]  In  several  instances  this  ship-sinking  is  repre- 
sented as  consequent  to  the  baptizing,  thus  showing  that  the  sink- 
ing (and  so  drowning)  is  rather  an  effect  of  baptism  than  the  bap- 
tism itself  (C.  39,  158).  Of  com-se  an  intusposition  in  water  may 
be  followed  by  a  sinking  and  "  drowning,"  or  by  a  taking  out  or 
emersion  from  the  water  ;  the  result  being  generallj'  dependent  on 
the  nature  of  the  object  baptized,  or  on  the  will  and  strength  of 
the  baptizer.  Dr.  Dale,  as  we  have  seen,  concedes  in  theor}'  an 
occasional  rising  from  the  baptismal  grave ;  but  this  emergence 
from  a  physical  baptism  is,  on  his  own  showing,  seldom  available 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  21 

in  fact.  His  proposition,  stated  as  without  any  exceptions,  is,  that 
"  baptism  has  no  outcome  to  it."  If  a  ritual  water-baptism  is 
supposedly  in  the  Commission,  our  author  gives  no  hint  of  a  possi- 
ble "  outcome"  to  it,  even  though  G-od  has  said,  "  Thou  shalt  not 
kill,"  and  even  though  the  Commission  itself  imphes  an  "out- 
come" by  its  inculcating  the  duty  of  teaching  the  baptized  dis- 
ciples. "When  a  ritual  baptism  is  under  consideration,  "  death 
by  drowning"  is  the  rule,  without  an)^  exceptions!  Yet  all  the 
drowning  baptisms  of  human  beings,  so  far  as  we  recollect,  have 
been  effected  by  enemies,  or  otherwise  adverse  influences,  or  for 
self-destruction.  Instances,  on  the  other  hand,  of  baptized  per- 
sons lifting  up  their  heads,  indicate  the  possibility  of  emergence 
and  safetj'  (C.  22).  Aristobulus,  Herod's  brother-in-law,  had  to 
undergo  repeated  baptisms,  performed  on  him  as  if  in  sport  by  the 
king's  hired  assassins,  before  he  was  finally  suffocated  (C.  16). 
Hippocrates  speaks  of  persons  breathing  in  a  peculiar  wa}^  after 
ha^ang  been  baptized  (C.  30)  ;  and  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  clear- 
ly' implies  that  baptized  persons  could  be  drawn  up,  and  thus 
"  saved"  from  drowning  (C.  44).  There  is  one  case  of  a  semi- 
religious  self-baptizing  into  the  sea  recommended  by  the  jugglers 
to  a  superstitious  man  troubled  with  frightful  dreams  (C.  64).  If 
Dr.  Dale's  theor}'  were  true,  the  proposed  sea-bath  would  indeed 
have  quickl}^  brought  his  earthly  dreams  to  an  end  !  Many  super- 
ficial and  momentary  baptisms  also  are  recorded,  exact  duplicates, 
in  fact,  of  Dr.  Dale's  evanescent  &opfo-dippings.  In  Ex.  25 
wine  is  drawn  by  baptizing  or  dipping  the  drinking-cups  into  the 
great  wine-jars.  So  one  man  baptizes  his  hollowed  hand  in  water 
in  order  to  dart  the  draught  into  his  mouth  (C.  57)  ;  another  bap- 
tizes his  hand  into  blood  in  order  to  write  an  inscription  (C.  67). 
Several  instances  of  baptizing  the  sword  into  one's  throat  or 
breast  are  given  (C.  47,  68,  78,  77).  Ex.  70  might  also  be  ad- 
duced as  another  instance  of  a  designedl}"  brief  immersion.  The 
baptizing  game  between  King  Philip  and  the  pancratist  in  the  pool 
proves  also  that  repeated  baptisms,  when  performed  by  one  person 
upon  another  in  a  friendly  wa}'  (the  onlj-  instance  of  this  kind  in 
the  Classics),  are  compatible  with  safety  of  human  life  (C.  156). 
But,  of  all  the  baptisms  mentioned  b}"  the  Classics,  perhaps  that  of 
the  bladder  is  the  briefest.  The  Sibjiline  oracle,  referring  to  the 
city  of  Athens,  says,  "A  bladder,  thou  maj-est  be  baptized  ;  but  it 


22  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

is  impossible  for  thee  to  sink"  (C.  24).  A  full-blown  bladder 
would  naturall}^  float  on  the  water :  it  could  be  pressed  under  or 
baptized  by  the  hand  ;  but,  on  removing  the  hand,  how  quickly,  in 
the  language  of  Ewing,  would  it  pop  ujj  !  If,  now,  the  Wolffs  and 
Dales  of  our  time  were  much  less  inflated,  and  much  heavier,  than  a 
bladder,  there  need  be,  in  view  of  examples  cited,  and  many  others 
which  might  be  given,  no  fear  on  their  part,  certainly  no  absolute 
necessity,  of  drowning  in  water-baptism.  Even  the  sea-coast  west 
of  Gibraltar,  a  pretty  heavy  object,  emerged  twice  a  day  from  its 
baptism  (C.  4).  Immersion  in  water  of  its  own  force  will  not, 
therefore,  necessarily  "  drown  any  li\"ing  man  "  in  the  absence  of 
enemies  and  of  cumbersome  burdens,  unless  he  should  be  taken 
with  the  cramp,  or  carried  away  with  the  current  (C.  13),  or  is 
bent  on  suicide  (C.  65).  If  &aj9ii20  never  "  contemplates  "  bring- 
ing a  man  up  from  "the  water}^  grave,"  it  always  requires  the 
strongest  possible  adverse  and  hostile  influences  to  carry  him  down 
and  keep  him  there. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  23 


CHAPTER  V. 

•WATER-BAPTISM   MORE   THAK  A   WETTING. 

A  LITTLE  water  applied  in  "  any  way,"  according  to  "  The 
Congregationalist,"  or  "in  some  manner  and  to  a  certain 
extent,"  according  to  Professor  G.  B.  Jewett  (see  his  "  Baptism 
versus  Immersion,"  p.  36),  does  not  suffice  for  a  true  Classic  bap- 
tism, nor,  indeed,  for  Dr.  Dale's  baptizo,  primary  or  secondary. 
Neither  "  wash,"  nor  "  pour,"  nor  "  sprinlde,"  will  easily  fm-nish 
"a  complete  intusposition,"  or  effect  a  "  drowning;  "  nor  conld 
they,  as  our  author  confesses,  originate  the  idea  of  "  controlling 
influence."  "It  is  the  indefinitelj''  long  continuance  of  mersion 
which  qualifies  it  to  exert  a  controlling  influence  over  objects  phj^si- 
call}^  mersed,  and  which  makes  it  the  representative  ivord  for  any 
controlling  influence,  however  induced."  It  is  "  intusposition, 
withinness,  of  unlimited  continuance,  which  is  causative  of  influ- 
ence." Still,  though  "sprinkling"  and  "pouring"  are  not 
equivalents  of  baptizo,  and  ^^  not  its  most  natural  servitors,"  3-et 
Dr.  Dale  thinks  that  "  a  baptism  of  influence,"  such  as  he  finds  in 
the  Classics  and  elsewhere,  may  be  effected  by  sprinkling  or  pour- 
ing, and,  indeed,  in  a  "mjTiad"  (ten  thousand)  different  ways. 
We  contend  that  a  partial  wetting  or  mersion  will  answer  neither 
for  the  literal  or  figurative  classical  baptisms.  In  manj^  of  the 
examples  already  cited  (C.  16,  22,  24,  28,  30)  the  baptisms  referred 
to  suppose  an  entire  submersion,  a  complete  covering  in  water. 

It  will  be  generally  conceded  that  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers 
well  understood  what  act  baptizo  requires,  and  that  this  act  with 
them  was  not  a  partial,  but  a  total,  immersion  in  water.  Augustine 
thus  addresses  the  catechumens:  "When  standing  in  this  font, 
before  we  dip  j^our  whole  bod}''"  (antequam  vos  toto  corpore 
iiwg'weremi^s),  "  we  have  asked, 'Behevest  thou? '  &c.  .  .  .  After 


24  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

5*ou  have  promised  to  believe,  we  immersed  "  (demersimus)  "  three 
times  jour  heads  in  the  sacred  font."  And  again  he  sajs,  "  Multa 
sacramenta  aliter  atque  ahter  accipimus.  Qusedam  sicut  nostis  ore 
accipimus,  qusedam  per  totum  corpus  accipimus  ;  "  i.e.,  some  sacra- 
ments we  receive  by  the  mouth  (as  the  eucharist) ,  and  some  by 
the  whole  body  (as  baptism) .  Chrysostom,  describing  the  physical 
act  of  baptism,  says,  "When  we  sink  our  heads  down  in  the  water 
as  in  a  kind  of  tomb,  the  old  man  is  buried,  and,  sinking  down 
beneath,  is  all  concealed  at  once  "  (C.  185,  also  193).  Basil  saj-s 
the  "  bodies  of  those  who  are  baptized  are  in  a  manner  buried  in 
the  water  "  (C.  181) .  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Basil's  brother,  likewise 
says,  "  But  coming  to  the  water,  the  element  cognate  to  the  earth, 
we  hide  om-selves  in  it,  as  the  Saviour  hid  himself  in  the  earth." 
C3'ril  of  Jerusalem  sa.js  that  "  he  who  sinks  down  in  the  waters, 
and  is  baptized,  is  surrounded  on  aU  sides  by  the  waters," 
&c.  (C.  180).  The  same  writer  also  remarks,  that  "as  he  who 
is  in  the  night  sees  no  more,  but  he  who  is  in  the  day  remains  in 
the  light,  so,  in  descending,  ye  saw  nothing,  as  in  the  night,  but,  in 
ascending  again,  ye  were  as  in  the  da}" ;  and  in  the  same  ye  died 
and  were  born,  and  that  water  of  salvation  became  to  you  a  grave 
and  a  mother."  And  Hippolytus,  speaking  of  Christ's  baptism  in 
the  Jordan,  says,  "Oh  wonderful  transactions!  How  was  the 
boundless  '  river  that  makes  glad  the  city  of  God  '  bathed  in  a 
little  water  !  the  incomprehensible  fountain,  that  sends  forth  life  to 
men,  and  has  no  end,  covered  by  scanty  and  transitorj^  waters  !  " 
(C.  203.)  In  Ex.  69,  156,  221,  baptism  is  expressly  distin- 
guished from  sprinkUng.  Referring  especially  to  the  bladder 
baptism,  Casaubon,  Turretin,  Witsius,  and  others  unite  in  saving 
that  baptizo  signifies  more  than  to  float,  and  less  than  to  sink  to  the 
bottom.  The  slight  wetting  which  it  would  get  in  floating  could  not 
be  called  baptism.  Floating  pieces  of  wood,  though  well  wetted, 
and  somewhat  "influenced"  too,  b}^  the  water,  are  not  baptized 
(C.  10).  The  men  who  walked  on  the  sea  by  the  aid  of  cork  feet 
doubtless  received  a  partial  wetting,  but  were  not  baptized  (C.  29). 
A  cork  above  the  net  must  get  quite  a  wetting ;  but  Pindar  saj's  it 
is  "  not  baptized  "  (C.  62,  63).  Strabo  the  geographer,  born  60 
B.C.  (see  Ex.  12) ,  in  speaking  of  the  density  of  the  waters  in  Lake 
Sirbon  (Sea  of  Sodom) ,  saj^s  that  one  who  is  not  a  swimmer  ma}" 
enter  in  without  fear  of  baptism  ;  j'et  such  a  one  would  doubtless 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  25 

receive  ' '  an  application  of  water  in  some  manner  and  to  a  certain 
extent."  -^  Whenever  the  immersion  is  partial,  it  is  always  so  stated 
(see,  in  Ex.  7,  11,  38,  6,  such  phrases  as,  "  baptized  to  the 
waist,"  "up  to  the  breast,"  "up  to  the  head,"  &c.) .  We  may  in- 
deed (somewhat  loosely)  speak  of  dipping  a  thing,  as  dipping  a  pen 
into  ink,  where  the  immersion  is  not  total ;  yet  "  dip,"  in  this  iUus- 
.tration,  does  not,  in  consequence,  mean  to  "  pour,"  or  "  sprinkle," 
or  "wash,"  or  even  "wet"  with  ink,  and  wiU  not  justify  "  any  ap- 
plication "  of  ink  to  the  pen.  What  we  really  mean  hj  the  phrase 
is,  that  we  dip  the  nib  of  the  pen  into  the  ink  ;  and  this,  of  course, 
would  be  the  more  accurate  expression.  The  usage  of  baptizo, 
however,  when  unlimited,  does  as  a  rule,  and,  so  far  at  least  as  it 
concerns  humanbeings,  does,  we  believe,  invariably,  require  a  "  com- 
plete intusposition  "  of  "  the  whole  person  ;  "  it  being  a  matter  of 
indifference  whether  the  continuance  of  this  immersion  be  longer  or 
shorter.  Dr.  F.  Brenner  defines  baptizeiii,  "  in  die  Tiefe  senken," 
"  untertauchen  ;  "  that  is,  to  sink  in  the  deep,  to  immerse  :  and  he 
sustains  this  as  its  Scripture  meaning  by  reference  to  Phihp  and  the 
eunuch's  going  down  into  the  water,  to  Jesus  coming  up  out  of  the 
water,  and  to  the  Scripture  terms  which  are  used  to  describe 
baptism,  such  as  "  water-bath"  (loutron,  Eph.  v.  26),  "  antitype  of 
the  flood  "  (1  Pet.  iii.  12) ,  "  being  buried,"  &c.  (Rom.  vi.  4  ;  Col. 
ii.  12)  (see  his  "Historical  Exhibition  of  the  Administration  of 
Baptism,  from  Christ  unto  our  Times,"  pp.  1,  2).  But,  in  xiew 
of  the  above-cited  examples  of  limited  immersion,  is  the  statement 
of  Dr.  Carson,  Professor  Riplej^,  and  others,  exactly  true,  that 
going  down  into  the  water  is  no  part  of  baptism  ?  From  such  con- 
cessions Dr.  Dale  has  di'awn  the  inference  that  none  of  us  Baptists 
have  been  baptized,  or  dipped  even,  save  onl}-  our  "  nobler  parts," 
—  our  heads  and  shoulders.^    'Bat  pa^-tial  wettings,  or  immersions, 

1  Another  Greek  writer,  quoted  by  Winer  (Bib.  Eealwoerterbucli,  art. 
Meer,  todies,  p.  74),  says  that  "  living  persons  could  not  easily  immerse  them- 
selves "  in  this  sea.  The  Dead  Sea  would  make  a  good  baptistery  for  all 
who  fear  a  drowning  baptism.  This  example  of  the  use  of  baptizo  (by  Julius 
Africanus  ?)  we  have  not  seen  referred  to  in  any  author  except  Winer. 

2  It  may  not  be  known  to  our  readers  that  Dr.  Dale  has  kindly  suggested 
a  method  whereby  we  may  dip  the  "  whole  i^erson,"  as  our  theory  demands. 
It  is  a  contrivance  of  "  ropes  and  pulleys,"  whose  action  is  to  be  accompanied 
by  "  sliding  the  whole  body  off  from  the  bank  by  a  little  clever  manage- 
ment," &c.    It  occurs  to  us  that  still  better  contrivances  might  be  iuvented 


26  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

did  not  fully  come  up  to  Tertullian's  idea  of  baptizo  and  tingo. 
"  Others,"  he  says,  "suggest,  constrainedl}^,  it  is  plain,  that  the 
apostles  then  realized  an  equivalent  for  baptism,  when,  in  their 
little  ship,  they  were  covered  by  the  spray  of  the  waves  {fluctihus 
adspersi  operti  sunt)  ;  that  Peter  also  himself  was  sufficiently  im- 
mersed when  he  walked  through  the  sea  (per  mare) .  But,  as  I 
think,  it  is  one  thing  to  be  sprinkled  or  intercepted  by  the  violence 
of  the  sea,  another  to  be  baptized  (tingui)  by  the  rule  of  religion  " 
(Dr.  Hovey's  translation  in  "Baptist  Quarterly,"  1871,  p.  77). 
Still  there  are  cases  of  very  thorough  wetting  which  lasiy  loosely  be 
termed  a  baptism,  or  immersion.  Carmel's  altar  was  so  thoroughly 
drenched  by  the  onpouring  of  the  twelve  buckets  of  water,  besides 
the  water  which  was  taken  to  fill  the  trench  (1  Kings  sviii.  33-35) , 
that  Origen  could  call  it  a  baptizing.  Ingham  seems  to  think  that 
"our  friends,"  in  the  baptizing  of  their  babes,  would  prefer  a 
single  immersion  to  such  a  copious  trine  onpouring  of  water  as  this 
by  which  Carmel's  altar  was  deluged.  We  are  willing  in  any  case 
to  concede  a  fair  immersion,  if  it  be  preceded  by  a  sufficiently 
copious  pouring.  To  come  down  to  later  times,  Walter  Scott  is 
quoted  as  authority  for  one  immersion  by  sprinlding.  He  says, 
"  The  boat  received  the  shower  of  brine  which  the  animal  spouted 
aloft,  and  the  adventm'ous  Triptolemus  had  a  full  share  of  the  im- 
mersion." Through  this  heav}^  showering,  far  more  severe,  doubt- 
less, than  Carson's  "summer-plump,"  the  boatman  probably  got 
an  awful  drenching ;  but  this  hardly  proves  that  immerse  means  to 
sprinkle,  or  that  sprinlding  is  properly  one  mode  of  immersion. 
Still,  as  we  can  speak  of  baptism  by  previous  pouring,  so  we  may 
of  immersion  by  a  previous  showering,  provided  it  be  heavy  enough, 
or  long  continued.  But,  from  these  instances  of  pouring  baptisms 
and  sprinkling  immersions,  our  readers  may  easily  see,  that,  had 
our  Saviour  used  the  word  "  immerse  "  in  the  great  Commission,  it 
would  have  been  an  unavailing  argument  against  the  practice  of 
sprinkling  as  one  mode  of  baptism,  or  immersion.  We  are  not 
sticklers,  however,  for  an  actual  downward  dipping  in  every 
instance  of  baptism.  Dipping  is,  indeed,  one  very  frequent  form 
or  kind  of  immersion  or  baptism  ;  yet  —  as  we  are  not  afraid  of  an 

tlian  the  one  suggested ;  yet  we  are  just  as  thankful  to  Dr.  Dale  for  Ms  friendly 
advice  as  though  he  had  happened  to  hit  upon  the  best  possible  method. 


STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM.  27 

"  intusposition  "  in  water  administered,  not  b}^  bapto,  but  b}'  bajj- 
tizo,  primary  and  proper,  in  a  friendly  way  or  as  a  religious  rite, 
and  that  we  may  please  our  friend  Dr.  Dale  especially  —  we  are 
willing  to  give  up  the  Carsonian  "  dip,  and  nothing  but  dip,  never 
expressing  anything  but  mode  through  all  Greek  literature,"  which 
"theor^^,"  in  the  hands  of  Dr.  Dale,  has  proved  to  be  such  a 
formidable  weapon  against  his  antagonists  :  and  instead  of  this 
"  dip,  and  nothing  but  dip,"  we  will  accept  the  other  averment  of 
Carson,  parallel  to  this  ;  namely,  that  baptizo,  in  "  the  whole  range 
of  Greek  literature,  .  .  .  signifies  imjierse,  and  nothing  else" 
(Cabson  on  Baptism,  p.  398).  We  are  willing  to  adopt  President 
Edward  Beecher's  "original  and  primitive  meaning"  which  he 
assigns  to  baptizo,  —  "to  cause  to  come  into  a  state  of  being  en- 
veloped  or  surrounded  by  a  fluid,  whether  it  be  done  by  an  agent 
immersing  an  object  in  a  fluid,  or  by  the  flowing  of  the  fluid  over 
the  object  without  the  intervention  of  any  agent,  or  by  the  passive 
sinking  of  an  object  into  it."  Of  course  the  natural  method  of 
one  person's  immersing  another  in  water  would  be  by  a  downward 
dipping.  We  are  even  willing  to  adopt,  with  slight  modification. 
Dr.  Dale's  own  statement  of  the  primary  import  of  baptizo.  Pie 
says,  on  p.  449  of  "  Ch.  Bap.,"  that  "  this  word  primarily  makes 
demand  for  the  intusposition  of  its  object  within  a  fluid  element 
by  any  competent  act  mo-^ing  indifl'erently  the  object  or  the  ele- 
ment"  (hence  by  act  of  dipping,  plunging,  or  whelming),  "with- 
out limitation  of  time  as  to  the  continuance  in  such  intusposition  ' ' 
(which  ' '  indefinite  period  ' '  may  be  ver}^  brief,  and  hence  allows 
of  a  "dipping,"  or  may  be  long  continued),  "thus  bringing  the 
object  into  a  new  and  thoroughl}^  changed  condition ' '  (whenever 
the  intusposition  is  attended  "  vtith  influence"),  A  baptism  is 
frequentl}^  "  most  brief  in  continuance,"  and  "  without  influence  ;  " 
and  a  dipping  is  sometimes  "  for  influence  "  and  "  with  influence  ;  " 
and  hence  a  "  mersion,"  or  baptism,  is  not  "  essentially  distin- 
guished from  a  dipping,"  and  our  author's  "  theory  "  collapses  at 
the  start.  If,  now,  Dr.  Dale,  in  baptizing  candidates,  will  com- 
pletely intuspose  them  for  an  ' '  indefinite  period  ' '  (which  may  be 
very  brief)  in  a  fluid  element  (as  he  now  may  do  without  fear  of 
a  "fatal  sinking"),  either  by  plunging,  sinking,  pouring,  or 
sprinkling  (dipping,  we  are  confident,  he  will  never  allow),  both 
ourselves  and  the  claims  of  baptizo  will  be  satisfied. 


28  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTEE  VT. 


CLASSIC    FIGURATIVE   BAPTISMS. 


IT  has  been  said  that  baptizo  has  so  many  different  meanings, 
primar}^  and  secondary,  literal  and  figurative,  that  no  one  word 
can  be  selected  as  its  exact  equivalent.  "  The  dictionaries  give 
fifteen  different  meanings  "  to  bapto  and  baptizo.  Yes,  and  dif- 
ferent writers  have  given  many  more  than  are  found  in  the  lexi- 
cons ;  and  they  could  have  given  hundreds  more  than  thej  have, 
had  the}^  regarded  as  definitions  every  word  which  has  been  used 
interchangeably  with  baptizo,  or  which  has  been  used  to  express, 
not  onl}-  the  significance  of  the  loord,  but  that  of  the  whole  Chris- 
tian rite.  The  patiists  had  more  than  a  score  of  distinctive  names 
for  the  ordinance,  —  such  as  "  water,"  "  laver,"  "  bath,"  "  foun- 
tain" (i.e.,  font),  the  "  new  birth,"  "  regeneration,"  "  anointing," 
"  initiation,"  "  mystery,"  "  sign,"  "  seal,"  "  illumination  ;  "  and, 
had  the}'  been  Beecherites,  the}'  would  have  oftener  used  the  term 
"  puiification."  Carson  would  allow  two  meanings,  a  primary 
and  secondary,  to  bapto,  —  "  dip  "  and  "  dye,"  —  but  only  one  to 
baptizo.  What  the  lexicons  gave  as  different  secondary  meanings 
he  called  "  figurative  applications  "  of  its  one  meaning ;  and  it  is 
in  respect  to  this  matter,  and  not  to  anj  doubt  as  to  the  primary 
meaning  of  the  word,  that  he  s&js,  "All  the  lexicographers  and 
commentators  are  against  me." 

We  are  about  tired  of  seeing  lexicons  refen-ed  to  in  this  dispute 
(some  sixtj',  it  has  been  stated,  have  been  appealed  to  in  a  recent 
controversy),  but  shall  just  adduce  one,  the  latest  and  best  in  our 
language,  —  the  sixth  English  edition  of  Liddell  and  Scott.  Here 
we  miss  the  "dip  repeatedly,"  and  the  "  pour  upon,"  of  the  earlier 
American  edition.  The  only  primary  definitions  given  are,  to  dip 
in  or  under,  and,  in  the  middle  voice,  to  bathe.     Of  tropical  signifi- 


STUDIES  OJSr  BAPTISM.  29 

cations  they  give  four  examples  ;  to  wit,  of  the  crowds  of  robbers 
who  flocked  into  Jerusalem  in  the  time  of  siege,  tchelming  the 
city  (C.  98) ,  soaked  in  wine,  over  head  and  ears  in  debt,  and 
drowned  with  questions  (C.  95,  133,  135).  Here,  certainl}',  is 
not  a  large  array  of  different  meanings.  Indeed,  I  know  of  but 
few  important  words  in  the  Greek  language  which  have  not  more 
definitions  than  this. 

Many  other  instances  of  metaphorical  use  might  have  been  ad- 
duced,—  such  as  baptized  in  cares,  evils,  worldlj^  affairs,  troubles, 
taxes,  povertj^,  affliction,  grief,  anger,  opiate  draught,  insensi- 
bility, sleep,  wickedness,  wantonness,  pollution,  fornication,  sins, 
&c.,  and  (once)  in  pleasure;  but  these  lexicographers  evidently 
thought  that  these  uses  were  all  grounded  in,  and  easily  reducible 
to,  one  original  meaning,  that  of  immersion,  and  all  had  a  general 
"  famil}'  likeness."  The  words  "  poured  "  or  "  sprinkled  "  would 
poorlj"  fill  the  place  of  "  baptized  "  in  the  above-cited  examples  ; 
but  we  can  substitute  "immersed"  for  it,  and  get  the  complete 
sense  of  the  original  in  every  instance.  This  shows  us  that  the 
word  "  baptized,"  as  applied  to  any  person  or  object,  imports  that 
the  person  or  object  is  intusposed  or  immersed,  literally  or 
tropically,  into  some  element,  so  as  to  be  wholly  surrounded  and 
enveloped  by  such  element.  Such  an  immersion  will  ordinarily 
be  attended  with  some  kind  of  influence  imparted  to  the  person  or 
object  immersed.  Yet  "  immerse  "  does  not  of  itself  thereby  mean 
to  influence,  since  it  denotes  rather  the  means  of  creating  or  im- 
parting an  influence.  Thus  to  immerse  any  thing  in  hot  or  cold 
water  is  to  subject  it  to  a  heating  or  cooling  influence.  But  does 
"immerse,"  in  consequence,  mean  to  influence?  above  all,  does 
it  mean  to  make  hot,  or  to  make  cold  ?  If  so,  then  "  immerse  "  wiU 
mean  to  drown  hj  "  never  taking  out  what  it  puts  in,"  to  strcpefy 
by  an  opiate  draught,  to  hetoilder  by  subtle  questions,  to  oppress 
b}'  taxes,  to  ruin  by  debts,  &c.  In  fact,  the  definitions  of  "im- 
merse" would  be  almost  innumerable,  since  the  different  kinds  of 
influence  imparted  bj'  different  immersions  would  be  well-nigh 
numberless.  But  this  is  virtually  the  way  in  which  haptizo  has 
been  treated  b}'^  Dr.  Dale.  And  as  he  has  treated  haptizo^  so,  in 
every  respect,  could  he  treat  the  word  "immerse,"  beginning  its 
history  with  "immersion  without  influence,"  and  ending  it  with 
"  influence  without  immersion."    And,  taking  aU  this  for  granted, 


30  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

lie  could  easily  demonstrate,  what  we  know  to  be  false,  that  "if, 
in  the  development  of  language,  any  word«  ever  lost  an  element 
(in  this  ease  the  condition  of  envelopment)  which  was  originally 
its  gTand  sole  characteristic,  such  a  word  is  "  immerse.  And  so, 
through  the  wonder-working  influence  of  the  Dale  theory,  we  must 
surrender  "  immerse,"  with  its  old  meaning,  which  is  "  vitally  de- 
pendent upon  the  idea  of  intusposition,"  and  must  consequently 
lay  it  aside  as  dead,  or,  at  least,  can  only  use  it  when  we  wish  to 
convey  the  idea  of  "influencing  controUingl3\ "  Yet  this  may  be 
to  us  one  consolation,  that  in  this  sense  we  may  use  it  at  almost 
every  breath  ;  for  we  are  controUingly  influencing,  or  are  being  con- 
trolhngly  influenced,  in  "  ten  thousand  "  different  ways,  and  at  aU 
times.  As,  however,  we  would  deny  the  above  "influence  with- 
out immersion"  (save  only  as  the  word  "  immersion"  should  be 
qualified  bj^  the  adjectives  "  literal"  or  "  physical"),  so  we  reject 
in  toto  Dr.  Dale's  "influence  without  intusposition,"  which  he 
regards  as  now  the  proper  definition  of  baptism.  A  baptism  of  this 
influence  kind,  without  reference  to  the  idea  of  intusposition,  exists 
onty  in  the  author's  brain.  Dr.  Dale  should  never  separate  his 
"controlling  influence"  from  his  favorite  "merse"  (iboierse). 
His  baptizo  of  influence  should  always  express  or  eflfect  ' '  a  meesive 
influence."  A  charitable,  if  not  the  true,  explanation  of  our 
author's  influence  theory  is,  that  lie  has  dwelt  on  and  among  the 
resulting  efl'ects  and  influences  of  haptizo  tiU  he  himself  has  been 
influenced  to  ignore  it  as  having  any  one  radical  meaning,  running, 
so  to  speak,  throughout  all  its  ramifications.  "We,  on  the  con- 
trar}^,  maintain  that  the  "  ground  meaning"  of  baptizo  —  namely, 
that  of  intusposition,  or  entu-e  immersion,  generally  in  a  fluid  ele- 
ment —  extends  to  all  the  figurative  or  secondary  uses  of  that  word 
"  through  aU  Greek  literature."  Confirmatory  of  this  view  is  the 
testimony  of  that  distinguished  classical  scholar,  the  late  Professor 
Charles  Anthon  of  New  York.  "The  primary  meaning  of  the 
word  (bapjtizo)  is  to  dip,  or  immerse  ;  and  its  secondarj^  meanings, 
if  it  ever  had  any,  all  refer,  in  some  way  or  other,  to  the  same 
leading  idea.^     Sprinkling,  &c.,  are  entirel}^  out  of  the  question." 

1  If  our  readers  wish  to  see  how  this  "  leading  idea  "  of  immersion  per- 
vades all  the  so-called  "secondary  meanings"  of  baptizo,  we  would  refer 
them  to  Eev.  H.  L.  Gear's  Keply  to  Rev.  J.  W.  Dale,  D.D.,  now  being  piib- 
lislied  in  the  Journal  and  Messenger. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  31 

(From  a  letter  to  Dr.  E.  Parmly,  dated  "  Columbia  College,  March 
27,  1843,"  and  cited  by  Eev.  Alexander  Campbell  in  his  debate 
with  Rev.  N.  L.  Eice.) 

Professor  Conaut,  after  adducing  some  of  the  above  and  other 
similar  metaphorical  examples  ("  Baptizein,"-pp.  90,  91),  says, 
"  The  idea  of  a  total  submergence  Kes  at  the  basis  of  these  meta- 
phorical uses.  Any  thing  short  of  this,  such  as  mere  pouring  or 
sprinkling,  viewed  as  the  ground  of  these  metaphorical  senses, 
would  be  simply  absurd."  Professor  Conant  often  gives  "  whehn  " 
and  "overwhelm"  (to  immerse  and  hear  down,  Webster  and 
"Worcester)  as  the  rendering  of  baptizo  in  tropical  use.  And  Dr. 
Dale  allows  that  ' '  the  wide  consent  to  the  introduction  of  '  over- 
whelming '  as  a  translation  of  a  certain  class  of  baptisms  must 
have  substantial  ground  to  rest  upon."  "  "WTielm,"  he  says,  "  in 
certain  respects,  serves  very  admirably  as  an  interpretative  word." 
It  is  one  of  Professor  Conant' s  seven  defining  terms  which  he 
would  retain  as  a  valuable  help  to  expound  the  Greek  word.  In 
accordance  with  this  idea,  Professor  Stuart,  Edward  Robinson, 
and  all  the  principal  commentators,  refer  the  Saviour's  dreaded 
baptism  to  the  overwhelming  sufferings  which  He  had  to  endure. 
So  Doddridge :  ' '  Are  you  able  ...  to  be  baptized  with  the 
baptism,  and  plunged  into  that  sea  of  suflferings,  with  which  I  am 
shortly  to  be  baptized,  and,  as  it  were,  overwhelmed  for  a  time?  " 
' '  I  have  indeed  a  most  dreadful  baptism  to  be  baptized  with  ;  and 
I  know  that  I  shaU  shortly  be  bathed,  as  it  were,  in  blood,  and 
plunged  in  the  most  overwhelming  distress"  ("Family  Expositor," 
ad  loc.) .  With  this  coincides  the  rendering  of  Mark  x.  38,  as  given 
by  D.  A.  Schott  in  Latin,  and  b}'  George  Campbell:  "Can  ye 
undergo  an  immersion  like  that  which  I  must  undergo  ?  "  —  a 
rendering  which  the  Baptist  Bible  version,  so  called,  has  almost 
literally'  copied. 

It  is,  however,  objected  hj  some,  that  Dr.  Conant's  "  immerse," 
"  dip,"  "  plunge,"  "  whelm,"  &c.,  whether  used  in  a  literal  or  fig- 
urative sense,  are  not  equivalents,  have,  indeed,  no  common  bond 
between  them,  but  diff'er  essentiall}'  in  import,  and  hence  cannot 
properly  represent  the  one  word  baptizo.  For  example,  "  dip,"  it 
is  said,  supposes  the  "  baptizee  "  to  be  active,  and  the  element  to 
be  passive  ;  in  other  words,  the  verb  indicates  the  movement  of  the 
object  into  the  element:  "whelm,"  on  the  contrary,  reverses  all 


32  '       STUDIES,  ON  BAPTISM. 

this,  and  makes  tlie  element  to  move  to  and  cover  the  object. 
But  our  friends  must  not  be  too  hard  upon  Professor  Conant  for 
using  several  different  and  not  exactty  equivalent  terms  in  inter- 
preting baptizo.  Dr.  Dale  and  other  Pedobaptists  have  often  told 
their  opponents  who  have  held,  or  have  been  charged  with  holding, 
to  "owe  plain  and  simple  meianing "  of  baptizo,  that  a  word  is  not 
alwaj's  used  in  the  same  sense,  that  it  may  have  a  "plurality  of 
concepts,"  and  that  this  word  especially  cannot  be  reduced  to  one 
signification.  Dr.  Conant  certainty  would  not  regard  the  words 
in  question  as  exact  equivalents,  but  would  hold  that  a  common 
"  ground  idea  "  runs  through  them  all,  which  is  also  the  ground 
idea  of  baptizo.  We  boast  of  no  dictionary-making  faculty ; 
and,  if  we  tr}^  our  hand  at  defining  some  of  these  terms,  we  shall 
do  it  without  any  feeling  of  Popish  ex-cathedrd  infallibility.  Dr. 
Dale  will  not  allow  Professor  Conant  the  lexicographer's  usual 
privilege  of  varying  his  form  of  statement  in  defining  a  word,  and 
chides  him  for  saying  that  immerse  signifies  to  put  into  or  under 
water,  though  there  is  no  appreciable  difference  in  the  value  of 
these  statements.  Both  convey  the  idea  that  the  object  immersed 
is  completely  intusposed  in,  covered  with,  and  surrounded  by, 
water.  Thus  Leverett  defines  mergo,  as  well  as  mmergo,  "to 
immerse,"  "  to  put  under  water,"  &c. ;  while  Andrews  defines  it 
as  plunging  into  water.  If  there  be  any  difference,  the  putting 
under,  perhaps,  expresses  more  obviously  the  idea  of  covering 
over.  Dr.  Dale,  we  are  aware,  makes  the  phrase  "put  into" 
expressive  of  act,  and  "  put  under  "  expressive  of  condition;  but 
the  difference  in  this  respect  is  exceedingly  slight.  Both  phrases 
are  expressive  of  act,  and  both,  in  their  proper  forms,  are  expres- 
sive of  condition.  We  say  of  immerse,  then,  that  it  puts  an  object 
into,  within,  or  under  water  (supposing  that  water  is  the  element), 
so  that  it  shall  be  wholly  covered  up  and  surrounded  with  water. 
This  intusposition  m.a,j  continue  a  long  or  short  space  of  time ; 
may  be  attended  with  influence,  or  be  without  influence  ;  and  may 
be  effected  by  different  modes,  or  in  a  variety  of  ways.  One  such 
way  is  dipping,  and  hence  dipping  we  may  call  one  kind  of  immer- 
sion. For  to  "  dip  "  likewise  means  to  put  under  water,  generally 
in  a  downward  direction  and  for  a  brief  space  of  time,  sometimes 
"  without  influence,"  and  sometimes  "  for  "  and  "  with  "  influence. 
If  Dr.  Dale  thinks  the  "  whole  person  "  must  be  out  of  the  water 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  33 

prior  to  and  in  order  to  this  full  dipping  (or  immersion) ,  we  are 
willing  lie  should  attempt  its  proof.  To  "  plunge,"  also,  is  to  put 
into  or  under  water,  generally  with  suddenness  and  force.  To 
"whelm"  is  to  put  an  object  under  water  by  causing  a  body  of 
water  to  come  to  and  over  it,  generally  with  yiolence,  and  with 
destructive  or  hurtful  influence.  Were  we  to  define  baptizo,  we 
should  do  it  precisely  as  we  defined  "  immerse."  Baptismal  intus- 
positions,  then,  the  same  as  immersions,  may  be  accompUshed  in 
different  ways,  and  be  attended  with  different  features  ;  and  Dr. 
Conant  has  done  wisely  and  rightly  in  employing  different  words  in 
translating  baptizo,  in  accordance  with  the  exigencies  of  the  differ- 
ent passages.  Baptizo  in  one  instance  may  denote  a  dipping,  in 
another  a  plunging,  and  in  another  a  whelming  or  overwhelming ; 
and  hence  even  these  in  some  respects  variant  words  may  be  used 
in  different  connections  to  translate  baptizo.  Does  any  friend  of 
controlling  influence  demand  a  proof  of  such  a  usage  of  baptizo  f 
We  refer  him  to  Dr.  Dale,  whose  statement  is  (see  "  Ch.  Bap.," 
p.  449)  that  baptizo  "  primarily  makes  demand  for  the  intusposition 
of  its  object  within  a  fluid  element  by  any  competent  act  moving 
indifferently  the  object"  (hj  dipping)  "or  the  element"  (by 
whelming).  "In  literal  primary  baptism,  ...  it  is  a  matter  of 
indifference  whether  the  object  is  moved  to  secure  intusposition, 
or  whether  the  element  is  moved  to  embrace  its  object."  There 
is  no  sufficient  reason  why  Dr.  Dale  should  not  accept,  as  general 
definitions  of  baptizo,  the  seven  defining  terms  emploj'ed  by  Pro- 
fessor Conant  (dip  excepted)  ;  since  these  "contemplate  intuspo- 
sition "  of  "  indefinite  continuance,"  without  regard  to  "  foiTu  of 
action."  Nay,  since  baptizo  "refuses  with  absolute  denial  to  be 
bound  to  an}^ "  (act) ,  "  whether  labelled  with  '  into,'  or  '  under,'  or 
'  over '  "  (although  an  intus  would  seem  to  involve  and  require  an. 
'•'-into''),  his  principles  would,  indeed,  "justify  the  addition  of 
seven  more, — to  'duck,'  to  'souse,'  to  'steep,'  to  'sink,'  to 
'  swamp,'  to  'ingulf,'  to  '  swallow  up,'  or  seven  times  seven,"  or 
"ten  thousand"  ! 

In  defining  immersion,  we  might  have  added  that  the  activity 
or  passivity  of  the  "  baptizee  "  and  of  the  element  is  a  matter  of 
indifference,  provided  there  be  a  full  submergence  of  the  object. 
Most  usually  the  person  or  thing  is  applied  to  the  element ;  but 
this  is  not  necessary  to  an  immersion.     A  blacksmith,  for  example, 


34  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

will  ordinarily  dip  Ms  heated  iron  into  a  trough  of  water.  The 
element  ma}',  indeed,  be  called  passive ;  yet  the  water  exerts  a 
ver}''  powerful  controlUng  influence.  He  maj-,  however,  put  his 
heated  iron  (saj-)  in  an  empty  kettle,  and  then  pour  water  into  the 
vessel  till  the  iron  is  full}-  immersed.  Here  it  ma}-  also  be  said 
that  the  iron  is  put  into  and  under  water,  jQt  in  a  different  way 
from  the  former  method.  The  element,  in  this  case,  is  active, — 
i.e.,  is  apphed  to  the  object;  yet  it  exerts  the  same  influence,  we 
may  suppose,  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  There  has  been  a 
good  and  valid  immersion  in  either  case,  though  performed  b}"  dif- 
ferent methods, — in  the  one  case  b}-  actuallj-  dipping  the  object,  in 
the  other  by  causing  the  element  to  come  over  and  immerse  the 
object.  "We  ma}"  Ba.j  that  this  latter  immersion  was  effected  by 
pouring  ;  but  this  pouring  was  not,  in  consequence,  an  immersion, 
nor  was  the  immersion  a  pouring.  The  pouring  was  merely  an 
antecedent  act  preparator}-  to  the  immersion :  it  maj^  even  be 
called  the  cause  of  the  immersion,  yet  did  not  in  itself  constitute 
the  immersion.  In  the  words  of  my  friend  Mr.  Gear,  it  was  a 
"  causative,','  but  not  the  "  constitutive,"  act  of  the  immersion. 
Thus  we  see  that  "  dipping  "  and  "whelming,"  for  example,  while 
not  exact  equivalents,  and  in  some  respects  divergent  in  meaning, 
yet  have  the  common  feature  or  property  of  "  intusposition,"  and 
may  each  properly  represent  bajjtizo,  as  its  circumstances  and 
exigencies  ma}'  require.  But  is  it  not  a  well-nigh  inexplicable 
mj'stery  that  Dr.  Dale  or  any  of  his  admirers  can  hesitate  to 
accept  Professor Conant's  "immerse,"  "immerge,"  "submerge," 
"dip,"  "plunge,"  "imbathe,"  "whelm,"  as  definitions  of  bap- 
tizo,  and  jet  can  swallow  down  at  once,  and  without  the  contortion 
of  a  muscle,  such  unrelated, 'opposing  terms  as  "  stupefy,"  "  make 
cold,,"  "bewilder,"  "make  drunk,"  "temper  wine,"  (render  it 
de-intoxicating!)  "drown,"  "pollute,"  and  "purify,"  which  are 
given  on  pp.  xx  and  135  of  "  Classic  Baptism  "  as  specific  defini- 
tions of  bajytizo  ?  So  long  as  our  ' '  Confessions  ' '  and  our  writers 
restricted  themselves  to  this  definition,  "  dipping  is  baptizing,  and 
baptizing  is  dipping,"  all,  to  our  author's  mind,  was  "definite, 
precise,  and  clear:"  but,  when  the  "venerable  Booth"  conjoins 
"immersion"  with  "  dipping,"  Dr.  Dale  detects  "  a  note  of  dis- 
cord ;  "  and  when,  to  Carson's  "  dip  or  immerse,"  is  added  "  dip 
or  sinlv,"  and   "lay  under  water,"  the  doctor  is   "fairly  bewil- 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  35 

dered."  ^    Was  he  not  in  this  state  of  mind  when  he  undertook 
to  define  the  "specific  conditions  expressed  by"  baptizo?     "To 

1  "As  Professor  Stuart  says,  'Bapto  and  haptizo  mean  to  dip,  plunge,  or 
immerge  into  any  thing  liquid :  all  lexicographers  and  critics  of  any  note  are 
agreed  in  this.'  So  Baptists  generally  have  freely  interchanged  the  words 
'dip,'  'jjlunge,'  'immerse,'  &c.,  as  allied  in  their  fundamental  import. 
They  have  not  trod  anxiously  as  near  an  ambuscade  of  sj'nonymes ;  they 
have  not  trembled  for  fear  of  being  submerged  in  a  tidal  wave  of  nice  verbal 
distinctions.  They  have  affirmed  that  '  dipping  is  baptizing,  and  baptizing  is 
dipping,'  in  the  sense  in  which  they  would  have  said  'immersion  is  baptiz- 
ing, and  baptizing  is  immersion.'  They  have  employed  the  liberty,  hitherto 
accorded  to  every  translator,  of  varying  words  according  to  diversities  of 
idiom,  without  dreaming  of  an  assault  from  Crabbe  and  Mr.  Dale. 

"  But  precisely  here  is  our  author's  strong  .point.  '  He  is  nothing  if  not ' 
verbally  and  intensely  '  critical.'  He  does  not  assail  us  with  Stephens  and 
Scapula :  it  does  not  appear  that  he  has  more  than  the  slenderest  acquaint- 
ance with  critics  and  commentators.  But  he  has  studied  English  syno- 
nymes;  he  has  determined  the  minute  shadings  that  mark  off  'dip,' 
'plunge,'  and  'immerse'  (as  well  as  '  bapt,'  'merse,'  'inn,'  and  'intus- 
pose');  and,  thus  completely  armed,  discharges  his  volley  of  synonymes 
with  fatal  execution  into  the  Baptist  camp.  From  the  point  of  view  of  the 
synonymes  he  passes  in  review  the  Baptist  authors,  to  see  how  they  have 
made  good  their  '  postulates,'  and,  as  might  be  expected,  finds  them  wofully 
deficient.  Where  all  was  to  be  definite,  luminous,  and  exact,  there  reigns 
a  perfect  Babel  of  contradictory  and  unintelligible  testimonies.  One  says 
'dip;'  another,  'dip,  and  nothing  but  dip,'  yet  iDresently  adds,  'or  im- 
merse' (a  'note  of  discord,'  says  the  inspector);  another,  equally  discord- 
ant, adds  'plunge;'  another  takes  '.sinking'  and  'drowning'  under  the 
shelter  of  baptizo;  another  hints  at  that  distinction  of  hapto  and  taptizo 
which  sends  a  '  shock  through  the  whole  Baj^tist  system ; '  and,  to  crown  all, 
Dr.  Conant  brings  up  the  rear  with  'dip,'  'immerse,'  'immerge,'  'whelm,' 
'imbathe,'  and  we  know  not  how  many  more  enormities,  to  throw  our 
author's  critical  soul  into  utter  bewilderment  and  perplexity.  Where  and 
what,  then,  is  the  '  one  definite  meaning '  of  haptizo  ?  Is  dipping  plunging  ? 
]s  plunging , immersing  ?  Are  'sinking,'  'submerging,'  and  'laying  under 
water,' identical  ?  Does  not  'plunge'  express  'a  movement  characterized 
by  rapidity  and  force '  ?  and  '  dip,'  a  gentle,  downward  movement  entering 
slightly  into  some  diverse  element  with  immediate  return  ?  Does  not 
'immerse,'  like  baptizo,  express  'no  definite  form  of  act,'  and  'intusiDose 
its  object  within  a  fluid  element  without  providing  for  its  removal '  ?  And 
are  '  Baptist  writers '  to  be  allowed  to  toss  about  indiscriminately  words  so 
radically  diverse,  and  postulating  one  meaning  through  all  Greek  literature, 
and  that  'dip,'  then  thus  wantonly  to  make  shipwreck  of  their  professions 
and  the  synonymes  ?  And  can  we  wonder,  that,  thus  summoned  before  his 
critical  tribunal,  he  brands  upon  them  utter  '  failure  '  to  meet  the  demands 
of  their  postulates  ?  " — From  Professor  A.  C.  Keisdeick's  article  in  Bap- 


36  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

tie  a  hundred- weight  to  a  man's  foot,"  which,  as  a  definition  of 
hinder,  our  author  deems  irrational,  would  be  truly  philosophic  and 
accurate  as  compared  with  some  of  those  above  given  of  haptizo. 
We  are  aware  that  words  sometimes  change  much  in  their  mean- 
ing in  the  course  of  ages  ;  seldom,  however,  losing  entirely  their 
primary  and  essential  meaning  in  the  way  of  natural  development. 
By  some  freak  of  fortune  their  meaning  may  be  thus  radically 
changed.  Dr.  Dale,  and  he  alone  so  far  as  we  can  recollect, 
believes  that  haptizo,  by  Greek  usage,  underwent  this  radical 
change.  "We  think,  that,  if  its  import  was  changed  at  all,  the 
change  was  exceedingly  slight  compared  with  the  change  the  word 
"baptize  "  has  experienced  in  English  hands,  or  rather  by  English 
tongues  and  pens.  Once,  for  example,  it  was  the  custom  to  bap- 
tize in  rivers  ;  but  I  have  just  taken  up  a  newspaper  which  informs 
me  that. a  man  has  baptized  a  river.  Perhaps  Dr.  Gale  was  not  so 
far  out  of  the  way,  after  all,  in  supposing  that  a  lake  might  be 
(hyperbolically  and  figuratively)  dipped  in  the  blood  of  a  frog ; 
for  this  lake-dipping,  we  should  suppose,  could  be  eflfected  much 
more  easily  than  the  "  complete  intusposition  "  of  one  of  the  very 
chiefest  rivers  of  the  world,  "  twentj-nine  hundred  miles  in 
length," — the  "majestic  stream"  of  Lualaba  and  the  "mighty 
Congo,"  now  identified  as  one,  the  "  whole  "  of  which  Mr.  Henry 
M.  Stanley,  unaided,  so  far  as  we  can  learn,  has  baptized  as  the 
"  Livingstone."  The  "  mode  "  of  its  baptism  was  not  mentioned  ; 
but  "the  act"  was  evidentl}^  less  "  Greekly "  than  Enghsh. 
Baptize  has  come  to  mean  "to  christen,"  '■'■to  name"  \  Well, 
this  meaning  is  not  stranger  than  some  of  the  diametrically  oppos- 

tist  Quarterly  for  April,  1869.  To  Dale's  hypothesis  touching  this  "fail- 
ure"—  to  wit,  "If  it  shall  be  found  that  between  postulates  and  writings 
there  is  no  harmony,  that  between  writer  and  writer  there  is  as  little 
harmony,  that  the  pages  of  the  same  writer  compared  with  each  other  per- 
petuate this  disharmony,  that  there  never  has  been  an  attempt  by  any  one 
writer  through  these  three  hundred  years  to  carry  these  postulates  'through 
all  Greek  literature,'  "  &c.  — Dr.  Kendrick  adds  this  "logical  conclusion:  " 
"  Then  the  idea  of  propounding  them  as  '  Baptist  postulates '  is  ludicrously 
absurd,  and  would  imply  in  '  Baptist  writers  '  a  stupidity  only  equalled  by 
that  of  Mr.  Dale  in  affirming  them  to  be  '  Baptist  postulates,'  and  then  pro- 
ceeding to  show  with  Homeric  fulness  and  vivacity  that  they  have  been 
flatly  disowned  by  every  Baptist,  who,  within  '  these  three  hundred  years,' 
has  written  upon  this  subject." 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  37 

ing  ones  given  by  Dr.  Dale,  —  "  to  make  cold,"  "  to  intoxicate," 
"to  de-intoxicate,"  "to  bewilder,"  "to  establish  or  confirm," 
(the  Syriac  amad?)  "to  stupefy,"  "to  pollute,"  "to  purify," 
and  such  like.  And  the  word  "to  name"  can  happily  be  con- 
served for  the  benefit  of  the  "influence  theor3^"  To  bestow  pub- 
licly a  name  upon  any  one,  especially  to  give  him  a  good  name,  or 
rob  him  of  a  "good  name  "  and  give  him  a  bad  one,  is  most  surely 
and  most  frequently  to  controlUngly  influence  him,  and  often  his 
destiny,  forever.  We  shall  expect  to  see  in  the  next  edition  of 
"  Classic  Baptism  "  the  verb  "  to  name  "  instanced  as  fulfilling,  or 
as  quahfied  to  fulfil,  one  of  the  "specific  conditions"  expressed 
by  haptizo. 

"We  would  simply  add  as  a  noticeable  fact,  that  all  the  above 
instances  of  figurative  usage  (with,  perhaps,  a  single  exception) 
are  baptisms  of  a  hurtful  and  destructive  influence,  and  are  not  of 
that  kind  which  Dr.  Dale  would  naturally  wish  to  transfer  to  the 
sphere  of  the  New  Testament. 


38  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER   VII. 


JUDAIC   PURIFYING   BAPTISMS. 


THE  principal  examples  of  the  Judaic  use  of  the  word  baptizo, 
outside  of  the  ^ew  Testament,  are  found  in  the  Septuagint 
version  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  the  Apocrypha,  and  in  the  writings 
of  Philo  and  Josephus.  Baptizo,  in  some  of  its  forms,  occurs  four 
times  in  the  Sevent}^,  or  Septuagint,  and  Apocrj-pha  ;  and,  in  three 
of  these  instances  (2  Kings  v.  14,  Jud.  xii.  7,  Ecclus.  xxxiv.  25), 
the  act  of  baptism  was  performed  for  the  purpose  of  cleansing 
or  purification.  But  in  Isa.  sxi.  4,  and  in  Aquila's  version  of 
Job  ix.  31,  one  finds,  on  the  contrary,  baptisms  of  sin  and  pollu- 
tion :  "  Iniquity'  baptizes  me  ;  "  and,  "  Even  then  thou  wilt  baptize 
me  in  corruption."  Now,  the  idea  of  purification  is  no  more  ex- 
pressed in  the  word  baptizo,  in  the  former  instances,  than  pollution 
is  in  the  latter.  The  purification  and  the  pollution  are  expressed, 
not  by  the  word  itself,  but  by  the  connecting  words  and  relating 
circumstances.  Whether  these  purifying  baptisms  are  examples 
of  physical  intusposition  in  a  fluid  element  —  in  other  words,  of 
literal  and  proper  immersion  —  we  shall  consider  at  another  time. 

Turning,  now,  to  the  New  Testament,  we  remark  that  the  "  divers 
baptisms"  of  Heb.  ix.  10  evident^  refer  to  the  Old-Testament 
Levitical  rites  of  ablution,  or  bathing,  and  are  called  "diverse," 
not  because  they  differ  in  nature  or  kind  one  from  another,  hke 
sprinkling,  pouring,  and  immersion,  but  because  they  are  various, 
manifold  (mancherlei,  as  in  Luther's  version),  and  refer,  as  Baum- 
garten  says,  both  to  "  men  and  things."  "In  2  Mace.  xiv.  21  the 
word  is  applied  to  two  different  seats  of  the  same  kind.  The  only 
difference  here  was  that  Nicanor  and  Judas,  instead  of  sitting  on 
the  same  throne,  or  chair,  had  each  a  chair  for  himself,  a  different 
seat"   (Carson,  p.  326).     By  consulting  such  passages  as  Lev. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  39 

viii.  6,  xi.  32,  xiv.  6,  8,  9,  xv.  5,  13,  16,  xvi.  4,  24,  26,  28, 
Num.  xix.  7,  8,  19,  xxxi.  23,  one  may  see  how  often  things 
defiled  had  to  be  "put  into  water,"  spoils  taken  in  war  made  to 
"pass  through  the  water,"  and  persons,  official  and  vmofiieial, 
were  enjoined  to  wash  their  clothes  and  bathe  their  persons  in 
water.  The  Hebrew  word  for  "washing"  of  clothes  indicates 
that  the  defiled  clothing  was  trodden  doivn  in  the  water,  and  thus 
immersed  in  their  cleansing  (see  art.  "  FuUo,"  in  Smith's  "  Greek 
and  Roman  Antiquities  ") .  Liinemann,  the  continuator  of  Meyer, 
has  given,  mainty,  the  same  Old-Testament  references  as  we  have 
done  ;  and  all  Of  them,  with  perhaps  one  exception,  refer  to  bathing. 
And  Professor  Cremer  sa^^s  that  ' '  the  peculiar  New-Testament 
and  Christian  use  of  the  word  to  denote  immersion,  submersion, 
i.e.,  to  baptize,  .  .  .  may  be  pretty  clearly  traced  back  to  the 
Levitical  washings."  The  rabbis  also,  in  the  Talmud,  make 
very  frequent  reference  to  the  baptisms,  under  the  Mosaic  dis- 
pensation, of  vmclean  vessels  and  of  defiled  persons,  making  use 
of  some  forai  of  the  word  tabal  (to  dip)  to  denote  these  "Judaic" 
baptisms.  Surely  these  thorough  ablutions,  arising  from  so  many 
causes,  and  occurring  with  such  frequency,  may  well  be  called 
"  diverse  baptisms."  If  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ilebrews 
had  spoken  of  "diverse  sprinJcliyigs,"  it  would  also  have  been 
easy  enough  to  supplj^  abundant  references  to  the  Old-Testament 
scriptures. 

We  remark,  further,  that  the  baptisms  of  cups,  pots,  brazen 
vessels,  and  couches  (Mark  vii.  4),  are  traceable  in  part,  it  ma}'  be, 
to  the  Levitical  rites,  but  chieflj'  to  the  "  tradition  of  the  elders.". 
These  "baptisms,"  says  Mej-er,  "are  to  be  understood  of  ablution 
by  immersion." 

The  Greek  Jewish  writers  outside  of  the  New-Testament  and 
Christian  sphere,  who  have  used  the  word  haptizo^  are  Philo  and 
Josephus  ;  the  former  employing  it  twice,  the  latter  fifteen  times. 
They  both  were  of  priestl}'  descent  (the  latter  being  himself  a 
priest)  ;  both  lived  in  the  times  of  the  apostles  ;  the  writings  of  both 
were  voluminous.  And  it  is  on  these  writers  that  we  must  mainl}* 
depend  for  our  knowlege  of  the  vernacular  Jewish  Greek  usage  iu 
the  time  of  Christ.  The  philosophizing  Philo  Judneus  emploj's 
baptizo  only  in  a  tropical  sense,  to  express  a  baptism  of  gluttony 
and  of  drunkenness  (C.  136,  142).     Of  the  fifteen  instances  iu 


40  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

Joseplius'  writings,  one  has  reference  to  a  baptism  (by  drunken- 
ness) into  insensibiKty  and  sleep,  one  to  a  suicidal  sword-plun- 
ging, one  to  a  dipping  of  a  hyssop-branch  or  heifer-ashes,  some 
three  or  four  to  a  bodily  immersion  or  drowning  in  water,  several 
to  a  destructive  moral  whelming,  and  nearly  one-half  of  the  whole 
either  to  actual,  supposable,  or  figurative  shipwreckings ;  thus 
showing  that  the  "  intusposition  "  idea  of  baptizo,  "its  original, 
grand,  sole  characteristic,"  instead  of  becoming  obsolete  and  lost  in 
the  apostohc  age,  had  become  rather  deepened  and  intensified.^ 

While,  now,  we  are  willing  to  concede  with  Theophylact  that "  God 
prefigures  the  baptism  in  the  Jewish  rites"  (C.  220),  and  allow 
that  the  patrists  found  some  t^'pe  or  image  of  baptism  in  almost 
every  divinely-appointed  act  or  instance  of  cleansing  or  saving 
power  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament,  we  deny  in  toto  the  state- 
ment of  Dr.  Dale,  that  the  actual  '■'•Judaic  baptism"  (not  as  seen 

1  Since  so  many  jjersons  possess  Josephus'  writings,  we  give,  for  their 
sake,  tlie  different  references.  The  mere  English  reader  can  easily  guess  the 
word  which  stands  for  baptize.  Josephus'  Life,  Sect,  3;  Antiquities, 
4:  4,  6;  9:  10,  2;  10:  9,  4;  15:  3,  3;  Wars,  1:  22,  2;  1:  27,  1;  2:  18,  4;  2:  20, 
1;  3:  7, 15;  3:  8,  5;  3:  9,  3;  3: 10,  9  (twice);  4:  3,  3;  and  Conant's Examples, 
16-23,  68,  69,  96-98,  118.  Only  one  baptizing  in  all  these  fifteen  examples 
has  ever  been  supposed  by  any  one  to  signify  a  purifying ;  and  this  suppo- 
sition is  grounded,  as  we  shall  attempt  to  show,  on  a  mistranslation  of  the 
passage  (C.  69).  In  any  possible  translation,  however,  the  baptizing  is  ex- 
pressly distinguished  from  a  "sprinkling." 

As  some  may  suppose  that  Josephus'  notice  of  John  the  Baptist  is  favora- 
ble to  the  purifying  cause,  we  here  present  it  to  the  reader:  "John  that  was 
called  the  Baptist,  .  .  .  wlio  was  a  good  man,  and  commanded  the  Jews  to 
exercise  virtue,  both  as  to  righteousness  towards  one  another,  and  piety 
towards  God,  and  so  to  come  to  baptism  (baptismo),  for  that  the  washing 
(baptisin)  would  be  acceptable  to  him  if  they  made  use  of  it,  not,  in  order 
to  the  putting  away  of  some  sins  (only),  but  for  the  purification  of  the  body; 
supposing  still  that  the  soul  was  thoroughly  purified  beforehand  by  right- 
eousness" (Antiquities  18:  5,  2,  Whiston's  translation).  John's  water-bap- 
tism, however,  had  reference  not  so  much  to  purification  as  to  repentance 
and  remission.  Hence  the  distinctive  name  of  John  the  "  Baptist "  was  not 
John  the  "  Purifier,"  neither  is  purification  the  especial  symbolic  import  of 
the  New-Testament  ritual  baptisms  generally.  Even  the  special  sprinkling 
purifications  of  Judaism  were  not  effected  by  the  use  of  simple  water.  But 
what  does  Dr.  Dale  mean  when  he  says  that  John's  baptism,  as  described  by 
Josephus,  is  "  a  purification  of  the  soul,"  and  not  of  the  body  ?  As  I  read 
it,  it  is  a  "  purification  of  the  body ; "  which  purification,  indeed,  presupposes 
and  symbolizes  a  purification  or  purging  of  the  soul  by  righteousness. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  41 

through  the  medium  of  patristic  fanc}^  or  through  modern  ' '  in- 
fluence "  glasses)  "is  a  condition  of  ceremonial  purification, 
effected  by  the  washing  of  the  hands  or  feet,  by  the  sprinkling 
of  sacrificial  blood  or  heifer-ashes,  by  the  pouring  upon  of  water, 
by  the  touch  of  a  coal  of  fire,  by  the  waving  of  a  flaming  sword" 
(the  reader  must  know  that  these  last  two  examples  refer  to  Isa. 
vi.  6,  and  Gen.  iii.  24),  "  and  by  diverse  other  modes  and  agen- 
cies, dependent  in  no  wise  on  any  form  or  act,  or  on  the  covering 
of  the  object ;  "  asliliewise  the  assertion  of  Dr.  Dale's  epitomizer. 
Rev.  J.  G.  D.  Stearns,  that  "the  secondary  meaning  of  baptizo, 
expressive  of  purification,  [simply  and  without  reference  to  mode  ?] 
was  its  common,  daily  signification  in  the  popular  language  of  the 
Jews,  and  had  been  for  several  generations."  ^ 

And  3'et  we  affirm  that  the  immersion  of  one's  whole  person  in 
pure   water  may  very  naturally  effect   or   s3'mbolize   a   thorough 

1  "It  will  be  well  to  notice  in  this  connection  a  mistake  sometimes  made 
by  persons  inexperienced  in  the  language  of  the  early  writers.  Some  of  the 
fathers  speak  of  the  ancient  Jewish  and  heathen  purifications  as  typical 
of  baptism.  Some  say,  that  as  these  purifications  were  often  by  sprinkling, 
therefore  the  eai-ly  writers  deemed  these  modes  comprehended  in  the 
term  "to  baptize."  But  the  slightest  knowledge  will  refute  this;  for  to 
say  of  a  thing  that  it  is  typical  or  figurative  of  another,  and  that  it  is  exactly 
the  same,  are  two  very  different  things.  It  is  not  essential  that  the  figure, 
and  that  of  which  it  is  a  figure,  should  be,  in  all  respects,  alike :  it  is  enoiigh 
that  there  be  a  likeness  in  a  single  point.  When,  therefore,  the  fathers 
speak  of  heathen  lustrations,  or  Jewish  sprinklings,  as  figurative  of  baptism, 
we  must  not  so  understand  them  as  to  make  them  contradict  their  repeated 
statement  that  baptizo  is  expressive  of  mode.  The  point  usually  aimed  at 
by  them  is,  that  as  both  these  are  symbolical  of  expiation,  of  cleansing,  and 
of  purifying,  in  this  respect  they  are  figurative  or  tyjncal  of  that  divine  bap- 
tism' which  washes  away  sins.  That  which  prefigures  baptism  may  be  a  rite 
in  which  no  water  is  used.  .  .  .  This  tendency  to  find  a  figure  wherever 
there  is  even  a  slight  similarity  is  a  characteristic  of  much  that  is  said  by 
even  the  earlier  fathers."  —  History  of  the  Modes  of  Christian  Baptism,  by 
Rev.  J.  Chkystal,  Presbyter,  Wilmington,  Del.  Dr.  Dale  is  not  "inexpe- 
rienced in  the  language  of  the  early  writers ; "  but  he  sadly  ignores,  especially 
in  his  Judaic  Baptism  (which  is  chiefly  but  a  patristic  spiritualizing  of 
certain  incidents  in  Old-Testament  history,  with  the  design  of  illustrating 
the  nature  and  benefits  of  Christian  baptism)  and  in  his  Patristic  Bap- 
tism, the  distinction  indicated  by  Tertulliau  and  other  fathers  between  the 
"carnalis  actus"  and  the  "  spiritualis  effectus"  of  baptism,  and  resolves 
patristic  baptism  mainly  into  an  "effectus"  (influence  or  resultant  "condi- 
tion"), which  takes  place  independently  of  any  special  actus,  or  "mode." 


42  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

cleansing,  and  that  it  is  a  thousand  times  more  expressive  of  entire 
purification  than  what,  by  a  yiolent  catachresis,  is  commonly  called 
"  sprinkling,"  as  we  have  observed  it ;  to  wit,  the  very  slight  apph- 
cation  of  one's  moistened  finger-ends  to  a  person's  forehead.  Such 
spriulding  (?)  as  this  is  too  slight  to  be  called  a  "  washing,"  and 
too  insignificant  to  indicate  any  very  thorough  cleansing.  "The 
most  disorderly  baptizers  of  all,"  says  Dr.  William  Wall,  the  great 
historian  and  defender  of  infant-baptism,  are  "  those,  who,  affect- 
ing to  use  as  little  water  as  possible,  do  purposely  throw  no  more 
than  a  sprinkle  or  drop  of  water  on  the  face  of  the  child.  The 
Scripture  will  never  justify  these,  nor  the  ancient  church,  nor  the 
rubric  of  the  Church  of  England  ;  for  that  requires  pouring  in  the 
weakest  child's  case  "  (see  Note  I.,  end  of  the  volume).  And  he 
further  says,  "How  large  a  signification  soever  the  word  bap- 
tizo  may  have  to  signif}^  washing  in  general,  it  is  plain  that  the 
ordinary  and  general  practice  of  St.  John"  (the  Baptist),  "the 
apostles,  and  primitive  church,  was  to  baptize  b}^  putting  the  per- 
son into  water,  or  causing  him  to  go  into  the  water.  Neither  do  I 
know  of  any  Protestant  who  has  denied  it,"  (this  in  England, 
A.D.  1720  !)  "  and  but  very  few^  men  of  learning  that  have  denied, 
that,  where  it  can  be  used  with  safety  of  health,  it  is  the  most 
fitting  way."  "The  way  that  is  now  ordinarily  used  we  cannot 
deny  to  have  been  a  novelty  brought  into  this  church"  (of  Eng- 
land) "by  those  who  had  learned  it  in  Germany  or  G-eneva;  and 
thej"  were  not  contented  to  follow  the  example  of  pouring  a  quan- 
tity of  water  (which  had  there  been  introduced  instead  of  immer- 
sion) ,  but  improved  it  (if  I  may  so  abuse  that  word)  from  pom'- 
ing  to  sprinlihng,  that  it  might  have  as  little  resemblance  of 
the  ancient  way  of  baptizing  as  possible."  "The  immersion  of 
the  person  (whether  infant  or  adult)  in  the  posture  of  one  that 
is  buried  and  raised  up  again  is  much  more  solemn,  and  expresses 
the  design  of  the  sacrament  and  the  mystery  of  the  spiritual  wash- 
ing MUCH  BETTER,  than  pom'ing  a  small  quantit}^  of  water  on  the 
face  ;  and  that  pouring  of  water  is  much  better  than  sprinkling,  or 
dropping  a  drop  of  water  on  it.  If  it  be  done  in  the  church,  in  or 
at  the  font,  and  the  congregation  do  join  in  the  prayers  there  used, 
it  is  much  more  solemn  than  in  a  bed-chamber,  out  of  a  basin  or 
pipkin,  a  teacup,  or  a  punch-bowl ;  and  a  bed-chamber  is,  perhaps, 
not  quite  so  scandalous  as  a  kitchen  or  stable,  to  which  things  look 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  43 

as  if  they  would  bring  it  at  last." — Defence  of  the  History  of 
Infant-Baptism,  fourth  London  edition,  vol.  iii.  pp.  85,  113,  349, 
seq. 

Some  persons,  we  know,  have  maintained  that  the  "  baptizee  " 
should  be  passive^  and  the  baptizing,  purifying  agent  element 
should  be  active;  in  other  words,  should  be  applied  (by  one's 
moistened  finger-tips?)  to  the  candidate,  which  is  not  generally 
the  case  in  immersion.  Yet  Dr.  Dale's  theory  of  "  withinness  as 
causative  of  influence  "  can  hardly  be  made  to  sanction  this  view  ; 
for  he  would  or  should  invariably  intuspose  in  order  to  secure  the 
full  "  controlUng  influence  "  of  water  or  other  hquid.  And  if  the 
element  thus,  and  thus  onl}',  exerts  its  full  influence,  it  cannot 
truly  be  said  to  be  passive.  And  again  :  if  it  makes  no  difference, 
so  far  as  baptizo  is  concerned,  in  what  wa}^  or  "mode"  the 
purifj-ing  element  is  applied,  then  it  can  be  legitimately  applied 
to  the  whole  person  by  immersing  the  whole  person  in  ' '  clean 
water." 

It  is  said,  however,  that,  if  baptism  be  made  emblematical  of 
death  and  burial,  it  must  be  significant  of  corruption  and  putrefac- 
tion, and  is  suggestive  of  any  thing  but  cleansing  and  purity.  But 
in  Christian  baptism  we  are  not  only  biuied,  but  are  raised  again, 
henceforth  to  "  walls  in  newness  of  Ufe  "  (Rom.  vi.  4  ;  Col.  ii.  12) . 

Dr.  Dale,  in  opposition  to  his  drowning  theory,  quotes  Basil  as 
sapng,  "  It  is  impossible  to  be  baptized  thrice  without  rising  as 
often."  The  burial,  then,  as  denoting  our  death  to  sin  and  the 
world,  and  the  rising  again  denoting  a  new  life  of  puritj^  and  holi- 
ness,—  what  can  better  express  an  entire  cleansing  and  purifica- 
tion? Dr.  Schaff  (in  his  "History  of  the  Apostolic  Church,"  p. 
570)  thus  remarks  :  "  It  is  well  known  that  the  reformers  Luther 
and  Cahin,  and  several  old  Protestant  liturgies,  gave  the  preference 
to  immersion  ;  and  this  is  undoubtedl}^  far  better  suited  than  sprin- 
kling to  sj'mbolize  the  idea  of  baptism,  the  entire  purifj^ng  of  the 
inward  man,  the  being  buried  and  rising  again  with  Christ." 
Arnoldi  says  that  an  entire  submersion  under  water  in  baptism  is 
"  a  confession  of  entire  impurit}",  and  a  S3-mbol  of  entire  purifica- 
tion'' ("Baptizein,"  p.  153).  T3'ndale,  whose  martyr-monument 
is  our  English  Bible,  in  his  "  Obedyence  of  a  Chiysten  Man,"  saj's, 
"The  loasshinge  preacheth  unto  us  that  we  are  cleansed  wj'th 
Chrj'ste's  bloude-shedynge,  which  was  an  offering  and  a  satisfac- 


44  "  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

tion  for  the  synne  of  al  that  repent  and  beleve,  consentynge  and 
submittynge  themselves  unto  the  wyl  of  God.  The  plungynge  into 
tlie  water  S3'gn3rf3"eth  that  we  d3'-e  and  are  buryed  with  CMyst,  as 
concernynge  the  old  lyfe  of  Sjmne,  which  is  Adam.  And  th.Q  pull- 
ynge  out  again  sygn3^f3"eth  that  we  ryse  agayn  with  Chr3'st  in  a 
new  l3'fe."'  To  lilie  effect  is  Cramner's  declaration,  in  his  Cate- 
chism of  1548,  that  "  Baptisme  and  the  d3'pp3"nge  into  the  water 
doth  betoken  that  the  olde  Adam,  with  al  his  synne  and  evel  lustes, 
ought  to  be  drowned  and  k3^11ed  b}''  daily  contrition  and  repentance  ; 
and  that,  by  renew3'nge  of  the  Holy  Gost,  we  ought  to  rise  with 
Christ  from  the  death  of  synne,  and  to  walke  in  a  new  lyfe,"  &c. 

We  have  space  to  quote  but  two  or  three  of  the  fathers.  The- 
ophj-lact,  after  speaking  of  "the  thrice  sinking  down,"  sa3^s, 
"Then  the  man  comes  up  as  did  the  Lord '>'  (from  His  burial), 
"  bearing  more  bright  and  shining  the  garment  of  immortality,  and 
having  suyiJc  the  corruption  in  the  water  "  (see  C.  202).  Chr3'sos- 
tom  asserts  (as  quoted  by  Dale),  that  if  any  one  should  be  an 
adulterer,  or  an  idolater,  or  should  commit  any  other  wrong,  or 
should  be  full  of  all  wickedness  among  men,  having  entered  into 
the  pool  of  the  waters,  — the  bath  of  grace,  — he  would  arise  from 
the  divine  waters  purer  than  the  rays  of  the  sun.  And  E[ippol3''tus, 
referring  to  Isaiah  as  foretelling  "the  cleansing,  of  baptism," 
says,  "  Pie  who  goes  down  with  faith  into  the  bath  of  regeneration 
.  .  .  puts  off  bondage,  and  puts  on  sonship :  he  comes  up  from 
the  baptism  bright  as  the  sun,  flashing  forth  the  rays  of  righteous- 
ness" (C.  226;  see  also  200,  218,  233,  234).  Certainly  the 
fathers  could  see  a  cleansing  from  sin  even  in  the  baptismal  grave. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  45 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


PURIFYING  BAPTISM   IN   SIRACH. 


IN  Num.  six.  17-19  full  directions  are  given  for  the  purifying 
of  those  who  had  defiled  themselves  b}^  touching  a  corpse.  A 
clean  person  was  required  to  take  a  hyssop-branch,  and  dip  it 
(tahal  in  Hebrew,  hapto  in  the  Seventy,  and-  baptizo  in  Josephus) 
into  heifer-ashes  water,  and  sprinkle  it  on  the  third  and  seventh 
da}'  on  the  unclean ;  after  which  the  defiled  person  (G.  D.  Ai-m- 
strong  and  E.  Beecher  saj^  the  clean  person!)  had  to  wash  his 
clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in  water.  Two  instances  of  purifying 
baptism  effected  hj  this  sprinkling  of  the  water  of  separation  are 
supposed  by  some  persons  to  be  on  record.  In  Ecclus.  xxxiv. 
25  (C.  175)  the  son  of  Sirach  asks  how  a  man,  having  baptized 
(and  so  cleansed)  himself  from  a  dead  body,  if  he  touches  it 
again,  can  be  profited  by  his  bathing.^  Now,  according  to  the 
Levitical  ritual,  the  defiled  man  (so  Keil  and  Delitzsch  and  the 
best  commentators) ,  after  the  twofold  sprinkling,  was  required  to 
"  bathe  himself  in  water."  This  Hebrew  word  rdhats  (occm-ring 
some  sixty-six  times  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  often  in  the  sense 
of  bathing  one's  whole  person)  is  in  the  Septuagint  most  fre- 
quently (some  thirty-seven  times)  rendered  louo.,  which  likewise 
commonly  signifies  to  "  bathe."  Even  Robinson,  in  the  last  edition 
of  his  Lexicon,  defines  louo  "to  wash  the  person,  or  the  whole 
body."  Trench,  in  his  "  Synonymes  of  the  New  Testament," 
says,  '■'■Louein  is  not  so  much  '  to  wash  '  as  '  to  bathe  ; '  "  while  the 

1  Cyprian,  with  others  of  the  fathers,  gave  to  the  text  this  meaning:  If 
a  man  is.  baptized  by  the  (spiritually)  dead,  his  bathing  will  secure  no  profit. 
And  he  uses  this  as  an  argument,  in  his  controversy  with  the  Komish  bishop 
Stephen,  in  favor  of  the  rebaptism  of  heretics ;  as  also,  still  later,  the  Dona- 
tists  used  ^t  against  Augustine  and  the  old  Catholics. 


46  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

middle  forms  (to  bathe  one's  self)  "imply  alwaj^s,  not  the  bath- 
ing a  part  of  the  bod}^,  but  of  the  whole."  Dr.  George  Campbell 
went  so  far  as  to  assert  that  it  invariably  signifies  to  wash  or 
bathe  the  whole  body,  and  that  it  cannot  be  applied  to  a  part. 
Carson  would  qualify  Campbell's  statement  thus, — that,  when 
louo  "has  no  regimen  supplied  by  the  context,  it  always  refers 
to  the  bathing  of  the  whole  bod}^ ;  "  and  on  p.  481,  seq.,  he  gives 
many  classical  examples  in  illustration  of  this  usage.  And  what 
is  true  of  louo  in  the  classics  holds  good  also  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  Scriptures.  In  Sirach  the  baptism  of  the  defiled  per- 
son involved  this  thorough  loutron,  or  bathing.  The  word  loutron 
occurs  twice  in  the  Seventy  (Solomon's  Song  of  Songs,  iv.  2,  vi. 
6),  and  also  twice  in  the  New  Testament  (Eph.  v.  26;  Tit.  iii. 
5),  where,  in  both  instances,  it  probably  refers  to  Christian  bap- 
tism. In  the  Sevent}"  it  denotes  the  washing,  or  the  washing- 
place,  of  sheep,  and  thus  imports  a  very  thorough  ablution.  De- 
litzsch,  in  his  "  Commentar}'  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews," 
refers  the  "diverse  washings"  (Heb.  ix.  10;  literall}'',  diverse 
baptisms)  "not  so  much"  (to)  "the  priestly  washings  before 
sacrifice  as  the  various  baths  and  purifications  .  .  .  after  cere- 
monial defilement,"  including,  of  course,  this  case  of  baptismal 
bathing.  Who,  then,  unless  he  has  "  a  theor}* "  to  support  or  a 
turn  to  serve, ^  can  doubt  that  this  baptismal  bath  refers,  not  to  the 
sprinkling  of  the  purifying  water,  but  to  the  self-bathing  in  water, 
which,  as  the  final  act  and  completion  of  purification,  would  natu- 
rally lie  uppermost  in  one's  mind,  and  be  regarded  as  a  thing  of 
chief  importance?  In  Tobit  ii.  5  it  is  recorded  as  a  noteworthy 
fact  that  he  bathed  himself  (louo)  after  the  handling  of  a  corpse. 
The  wording  of  the  law  in  Numbers  indicates  that  this  bathing 
was  the  last  act  to  be  performed  in  effecting  the  entire  removal  of 
defilement.  "On  the  seventh  da}^  he  shall  purify  himself"  (or 
him),  "and  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in  water,  and" 

1  If  anyone  wishes  to  see  liow  "a  theory"  is  sometimes  supported  (?) 
by  our  Pedobaptist  friends,  we  would  direct  Mm  to  the  Loutron  or  Water 
Baptism  of  Samuel  Fuller,  D.D.,  rector  at  Andover,  who,  to  ascertain 
how  much,  or  rather  how  little,  water  a  scriptural  dipping  requires,  begins 
his  investigation  by  referring  to  Luke  xvi.  24,  "  dip  the  tip  of  his  finger  in 
water"  !  Of  course,  hardly  more  than  a  "drop"  is  required  for  such  dip- 
ping. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  47 

(so)  "  shall  be  clean  at  even."  This  succinct  phrase,  "baptized 
from  the  dead"  (see  a  similar  phrase,  Heb.  ix.  22,  ^^  sprinMecl," 
and  so  cleansed  '■'•from  an  evil  conscience,"  where  the  writer 
likewise  puts  means  for  effect),  "  maj'^  be  easil}^  explained,"  Pro- 
fessor Stuart  says,  from  "such  passages  as  are  to  be  found  in 
Lev.  xi..  Num.  xix.  18,  &c. ;  by  which  it  appears  that  a  person 
who  touched  a  dead  body  was  ceremoniall}^  defiled,  and  must  wash 
his  clothes  and  his  person  in  order  to  become  clean." 

There  are  those  who  try  to  prove  that  the  customary  way  of 
bathing  among  the  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans  was  to  be  washed, 
standing  outside  the  bath,  or  to  be  poured  upon  while  standing  or 
sitting  in  the  empty  bath :  but  this  was  not  their  usual  full  and 
proper  bathing,  as  we  shall  show  in  a  subsequent  chapter ;  and 
certainly  was  not  the  ancient  Jewish  mode  of  bathing,  if  we  take 
the  testimon}'  of  the  Mishna  on  this  point.  We  make  here  a  few 
quotations  from  Professor  Fee's  "  Christian  Baptism,"  p.  92,  seq. 
According  to  the  Mishna,  the."  Miqvah,"  or  ritual  bath,  "must 
be  a  pool  in  the  earth  ;  or,  if  a  tank  or  baptisterj' ,  it  must  be  filled 
with  running  water  in  contradistinction  from  standing  or  stagnant 
water,  and  '  must  not  be  less  than  a  cubit  square,  nor  less  than 
three  and  a  half  cubits  deep.'  .  .  .  '  Every  thing  that  becomes 
unclean,  either  man  or  things,  cannot  become  clean  unless  dipped 
in  water'  "  (see  a  similar  law  in  Lev.  xi.  32).  "Again :  'When- 
ever washing  his  fiesh  and  washing  his  garments  are  mentioned 
in  the  law,  it  does  not  mean  any  thing  else  but  dip  (tabal) 
his  whole  bod}'  in  the  Miqvah.'  And  again :  '  Everj^  one  who 
talies  a  bath  must  dip  his  whole  bodj^  at  once.'  "  Professor  Fee 
also  quotes  the  following  from  Dr.  Wise,  "  a  learned  Hebrew,  and 
minister  of  the  temple  service  in  Cincinnati,  Ohio  :  "  "  There  were 
various  kinds  of  ritual  baths  among  the  ancient  Hebrews  ;  all, 
however,  in  forty  kab  of  flowing  water.  One  was  the  bath  of 
penitents,  one  the  bath  of  the  proselytes.  John  sent  his  candi- 
dates into  the  Jordan  to  be  cleansed  of  their  moral  lepros}-,  like 
Naaman,  and  exactl}'  as  the  modern  rabbi  sends  the  prosel^'te  peni- 
tent to  the  Ifikva."  Dr.  Wise  further  adds,  that  to  this  Mikva  the 
"Jewish  women  yet  go,"  according  to  the  law  in  Lev.  xii.,  xv.  ; 
and  ' '  to  this  goes  ever}^  pious  Israehte  on  the  eve  of  the  day  of 
atonement"  (from  "The  American  Israelite,"  July  26,  1878). 
The  Rabbi  Leo  of  Venice,  treating  of  the  present  customs  among 


48  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

the  Jews,  says,  "  He  who  desires  to  become  a  Jew  is  first  circum- 
cised, and,  a  few  days  after,  is  entirely  bathed  in  water  in  presence 
of  three  rabbis  who  have  examined  him."  For  fmlher  infonnation 
relative  to  the  baptisms  of  vessels  and  of  defiled  persons  under  the 
Jewish  economy  the  reader  may  consult  a  recent  work,  entitled 
"The  Talmud,"  b}^  Joseph  Barclay,  LL.D.,  a  few  extracts  from 
which,  relative  to  "  Judaic  baptism,"  we  give  in  Note  III.  of  the 
Appendix.  It  thus  appears,  from  the  unanimous  testimony  of  the 
rabbis,  that  the  ancient  Jewish  loutron  baptism  was  no  mere  pour- 
ing or  sprihkhng,  but  was  an  entire  "dipping  or  immersion." 

We  therefore  confidently  maintain  that  the  haptizo  of  Sirach, 
with  the  conjoined  loutron,  whether  this  loutron  refers  to  the  bath 
in  which  the  baptism  took  place  or  to  the  bathing  itself,  ' '  de- 
mands "  a  watery  "  intusposition."  That  the  design  and  eflect 
of  it  was  a  cleansing  or  purification  admits  not  of  a  doubt ;  but 
for  this  design  and  efiect  we  have  to  look  outside  of  the  word 
itself.  The  stupid  mule  (C.  50)  baptized  his  panniers  to  hghten 
them.  The  desired  effect  was  not  secm'ed :  the  design  lay  in  the 
animal's  brain ;  and  thus  neither  design  nor  effect,  nor  want  of 
effect,  is  expressed  in  his  haptizein. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  49 


CHAPTEE   IX. 

JOSEPHUS'    BAPTISM   OF   HEIFER- ASHES. 

WE  now  turn  our  attention  to  Josephus'  description  of  a  simi- 
lar purification,  —  Antiq.  4  :  4,  6  (C.  69).  The  translation 
of  the  passage  by  "Wliiston  is  as  follows  :  "  "When,  therefore,  any 
persons  were  defiled  by  a  dead  bod}-,  they  put  a  little  of  these 
ashes  into  spring- water  with  hj'ssop  ;  and,  dipping"  (baptizing) 
"  part  of  these  ashes  in  it,  they  sprinkled  them  with  it  both  on  the 
third  day  and  on  the  seventh,  and  after  that  they  were  clean." 

The  text  of  Josephus  is  here  exceedingly  tautological,  and  prob- 
ably corrupt.  According  to  the  Levitical  ritual,  the  li\dng  water 
was  to  be  put  to  the  heifer-ashes  in  a  vessel ;  and  a  clean  person 
was  to  "dip"  the  hyssop-branch  into  this  water,  and  then  sprin- 
kle, &c.  •  Josephus,  instead  of  dipping  the  hyssop  into  the  ashes- 
water,  baptizes  some  of  the  ashes  into  a  spring.  The  amended 
text  of  Bekker  baptizes  (or  dips)  the  hyssop-hrancli,  and  this 
accords  more  nearly  with  the  original  in  Num.  xix.  18.^  Pro- 
fessor Conant's  translation,  in  accordance  with  Beldser's  text, 
thus  reads  :  "  Casting  a  little  of  the  ashes  into  a  fountain,  and  dip- 
ping" (baptizing)  "a  hj'ssop-branch,  they  sprinkled"  (the  de- 
filed) .  The  Hebrew  word  tahal,  ' '  to  dip ' '  (occurring  sixteen 
times  in  the  Old  Testament) ,  by  an  almost  invariable  usage  re- 
quires as  its  representative  in  Greek  a  word  beginning  with  &ap,  — 
whether  baptto,  as   is   usual  in  the   Seventy  (fourteen  times) ,  or 

1  The  translations  of  D'Andilly,  L'Estrange,  Court,  Clarke,  and  May- 
nard,  agree  in  substance  with.  Professor  Conant's  version,  so  far  as  dipping 
the  hyssop-branch  is  concerned.  Many  of  these,  however,  render  ad  sensum 
at  times,  rather  than  ad  literam.  The  oldest  Latin  version  we  have  seen  is 
from  tlie  press  of  Feyerbendij,  Franlvfort-on-the-Main,  Sigismundo  Gelenio 
Interprete,  1588:  "  Paidum  hiijus  cineris  in  fontana  immittentes  ethyssopi 
ramulum  intingentes,  aspergebat  se,"  <S:c. 


50  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

baptizo,  as  2  Kings  v.  14.  We  here,  however,  accept  the  com- 
monly received  text  of  Josephus,  and  dispute  the  accuracy  of 
Dale's  translation:  "Baptizing  of  (b}')  this  ashes  (introduced) 
into  the  spring,  they  sprinkled  the  defiled."  Almost  every- 
where else,  Dr.  Dale  renders  the  Greek  geniti-^e  case  by  the 
preposition  "  of , "  even  where  the  passage  thereby  is  rendered 
nonsensical.  For  example,  where  Aratus  speaks  of  a  (sea)  crow's 
dipping  {hapto)  his  head  and  shoulders  in  the  river,  Dale  gives  us, 
"  Washed  head  and  shoulders  of  the  river  ;  "  and,  where  the  same 
author  speaks  of  the  sun  dipping  himself  (hapto)  cloudless  in  the 
western  stream.  Dale  has  it,  "  Cloudless  washes  of  the  western 
flood."  And  so,  of  coiu-se,  he  would  render  Luke  xvi.  24,  "  Send 
Lazarus,  that  he  maj'  loasli  the  tip  of  his  finger  o/ water."  And 
these  are  specimens  of  the  far-famed  beauties  of  "the  classics," 
which  he  would  spread  before  the  Enghsh  reader !  Say  we  not 
well  that  man}'  of  Dr.  Dale's  elucidations  of  the  original  text,  when 
compared  with  those  of  Professor  Conant,  are  as  mud  to  distilled 
water  ?  ^ 

According,  therefore,  to  the  commonly  received  text,  and  to  the 
doctor's   hteral   method,  which  would  here  be  correct,  Josephus 

1  Lest  our  judgment  may  seem  too  severe,  we  adduce  two  other  instances 
of  hapto  elucidated.  The  first  passage  (from  Herodotus  ii.  47),  referring 
to  the  river-bathing  of  a  defiled  Egyptian,  is  rendered  by  Dale,  "TFas/tecZ 
himself"  [hapto)  "going  upon"  (epi)  "the  river."  Gary  gives  the  follow- 
ing translation :  "  If  a  man  should  touch  a  pig  only  with  his  garment,  he 
forthwith  goes  to  the  river,  and  plunges  in."  The  preposition  epi  (upon), 
especially  with  the  idea  of  a  descending  movement  (down  upon),  often  like 
our  "upon,"  is  substantially  equivalent  to  our  "to;"  as  when  a  traveller, 
describing  his  peregrinations,  speaks  of  coming  upon  or  happening  upon  a 
village,  pond,  &c.  The  next  hapto  example  (from  Homer's  Odyssey,  ix. 
S92,  seq.),  "pJiarmasson  .  .  .  tcy^te  em  McZatJ,"  Dr.  Dale  renders,  "  working 
.  .  .  tempers  icith  cold  water."  Bapto  ein  (dip  in)  equals  tempers  with  ! 
And  Homer  gives  this  figure  to  illustrate  the  manner  in  which  Ulysses  and 
his  companions  thrust  the  burning,  sharp-pointed  bar  of  olive-wood  into 
Polyphemus'  eye,  and  the  effects  of  such  a  dipping  process!  Professor 
Stuart,  as  long  ago  as  1833,  gave  a  better  rendering:  "As  when  a  smith  dips 
or  plunges"  (bapto)  "a  hatchet  or  huge  pole-axe"  (more  literally  a  large 
hatchet  or  axe)  '''■into  cold  water,  sounding  greatly,  tempering  it,"  &c..  The 
brazier's  pharmasson  does  not  mean  "working,"  but  "tempering;"  and 
his  ha]pto  ein  does  not  mean  "tempering  with,"  but  "dipping  in."  Dr. 
Dale  knew  all  this  well  enough;  but  he  was  "  controUingly  influenced  "  by 
his  one-sided  "theory." 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  51 

would  say,  "baptizing  0/ this  ashes"  {eis  pecjen,  literally)  "into 
a  fountain."  Dr.  Dale  would  say,  "  baptizing  of  (by)  this  ashes 
(introduced)  into  the  spring  they  sprinlded."  We  stop  here  at  the 
introduction  of  a  word  which  has  no  existence  in  the  original  text, 
and  for  which  it  has  no  need.  One  of  the  two  prepositions  (eis 
and  en,  ^^  into  "  and  "  in  ")  which  usuall}^  follows  baptizo  is  here  : 
^^  eis  pegen,  baptizing  .  .  .  into  a"  (not  "the")  "fountain." 
Everywhere  else  (Mark  i.  9,  and  C.  64  excepted)  Dr.  Dale  is 
unwilhng  to  allow  the  introduction  of  any  word  between  baptizo 
and  eis.  "This,"  he  says,  "is  an  organic  phrase,  whose  parts 
cannot  be  separated  without  destruction  to  the  sentiment."  And 
Mr.  Stearns,  in  his  "Meaning  and  Power  of  Baptism,"  says, 
"The  Greek  expression,  baptizo  eis,  is  an  organic  phi-ase,  and 
should  alwaj-s  be  translated  baptize  into.''  There  is  no  necessity 
for  disjointing  this  organism  here,  and  interpolating  a  new  word, 
save  the  necessity  of  a  controlling-influence  theory-.  If,  then,  our 
author  abides  b}'  his  philological  principles,  and  translates  this 
passage  literally,  and  without  an}''  addition,  we  shall  have,  "bap- 
tizing also  of  this  ashes  into  a-  spring,  the}^  sprinkled,"  &c.  Any 
mere  English  scholar,  we  think,  would  get  a  correct  idea  from  this 
translation.  For  what  we  have  here  is  evidently''  the  frequent  geni- 
tive partitive  of  the  Greeks ;  and  the  idea  is,  that  they  baptized  a 
part  or  some  of  the  ashes  into  a  fountain.  The  Latin  versions  of 
Hudson  and  of  Dindorf  give  the  same  meaning,  ejusdemque  cineris 
aliquantiduni  in  aquam  immergentes ;  that  is,  "  immersing  also  a 
little  of  the  same  ashes  into  water,  they  sprinkled,"  &c.  This  is 
virtuall}^  the  rendering  of  Lodge  and  Whiston,  and,  we  presume, 
that  of  ever}'  reliable  translator.  The  objection  arising  from 
the  needless  repetition  of  thought  hes  here  not  so  much  against  the 
correctness  of  the  translation  as  against  the  correctness  of  the 
text,  so  evidently'  pleonastic,  and  so  variant  from  the  original 
Hebrew  which  it  professes  to  interpret.  The  Hebrew  text  and  the 
Sevent}^  speak  of  dipping  (tabcU  and  bapto)  the  hj-ssop-branch 
into  water.  The  common  reading  in  Josephus  makes  one  baptize 
or  dip  some  of  the  ashes  into  a  fountain.  Dale,  in  opposition  to 
both  Hebrew  and  Greek,  makes  it,  "  baptizing  of  (b}')  tliis 
ashes  (introduced)  into  the  spring,  they  sprinkled,"  (the  same 
ashes !)  and  so  on.  I  venture  to  call  this  an  unheard-of  transla- 
tion or  mistranslation,  and  the  argument  which  is   built  upon  it 


52  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

wholly  visionary  and  baseless.  Yet  nothing  is  made  to  do  more 
execution  in  Dale's  volumes  than  this  oft-reiterated  "  baptism  by 
the  SPRINKLING  of  hcifer-ashes."  When  examined,  this  baptism  is 
as  full  of  ashes  and  unreality  as  the  mj'thical  apples  of  Sodom. 

But  our  author  quotes  authority  as  substantiating,  and  even 
"  sealing,"  the  correctness  of  his  view.  The  testimony  of  no  less 
a  man  than  Cj'ril  of  Alexandria  is  introduced  as  a  grand  and  ulti- 
mate demonstration.  In  large  letters,  CjtII  is  made  to  give  this 
authoritative  announcement:  "For  we  have  been  baptized,  not 
with  bare  water,  nor  jet  by  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  ' ' !  Well,  we 
can  only  say,  that  we  believe  Cyril,  at  least  in  the  last  part  of  his 
sentence,  is  right.  Pie  had  not  been  baptized  in  any  such  way  as 
that !  But  who  could  have  imagined,  from  Dr.  Dale's  representa- 
tion, that  the  next  word  after  heifer,  in  the  Greek  original,  is  the 
verb  meaning  we  have  been  sprinkled?  Dr.  Dale  may  have 
known  it ;  but  there  is  nothing  in  his  book  to  indicate  such  acquaint- 
ance. Turn  we  now  to  Conant's  Ex.  221,  and  we  shall  find 
both  the  original  Greek  and  a  correct  translation.  Professor 
Conant's  translations  do  not  need  much  revising,  and  I  opine  that 
he  will  not  "  have  to  write  a  new  edition  of  his  learned  treatise  " 
for  any  thing  Dr.  Dale  has  said  or  done.  We  give  his  translation 
in  full :  "  For  we  have  been  immersed  "  (baptized) ,  "  not  in  mere 
water  ;  but  neither  with  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  have  toe  been  sprinkled 
for"  (or  unto)  "the  cleansing  of  the  flesh  alone,  as  says  the 
blessed  Paul,  but  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  a  fire  that  is  divine  and 
mentally  discerned,  destroying  the  filth  of  the  vileness  in  us,  and 
consuming  away  the  pollution  of  sin."  Here,  indeed,  is  a  purify- 
ing baptism,  not  effected  by  the  sprinkUng  of  heifer-ashes  or  of  any 
thing  else.  And  now  must  the  capital  letters  of  the  Alexandrian 
archbishop's  statement,  as  quoted  b}^  Dale,  and  the  argument  they 
were  designed  to  bolster  up,  all  collapse  and  vanish  at  my  simple 
assertion  and  bidding?  This,  certainly,  could  not  be  expected. 
I  feel  that  my  attainments  in  classical  learning  are  too  much  like 
those  attributed  to  Shakspeare  —  "small"  in  Latin,  and  "less" 
in  Greek  —  for  me  to  expect  any  such  deference.  And  I  can  well 
disclaim  all  authorit}^  here ;  for  when  I  adduce  the  name  of  Pro- 
fessor Ezra  Abbot  of  Cambridge,  with  that  of  Professor  T.  J. 
Conant,  as  my  authority  for  pronouncing  Wilson's,  Beecher's, 
Dale's,  and  Stearns's  rendering  of  Cyril  to  be  an  impossible  trans- 


STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM.  53 

lation,  giving  an  impossible  sense,  I  feel  that  I  may  well  reserve 
m}'  weak  assertion  for  some  other  occasion.^ 

1  After  the  above  was  written,  a  note  was  sent  to  Professor  Conant,  con 
taining  Dr.  Dale's  mistranslation  of  Cyril.  In  reply  lie  says,  "I  see  how 
he"  (Dale)  "  was  misled;  but  the  construction  is  clear,  and  the  thoroughly- 
trained  Griecist  could  not  lose  his  way."  In  reference  to  Stearns's  assertion, 
that  the  punctuation  of  this  passage  in  Dale's  translation  is  that  of  Cyril's 
Greek  text,  as  given  by  the  Abbe  Migne  of  Paris,  Professor  Conant  says, 
"  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  comma  after  cZamaieo.s"  (the  Greek  word  for 
heifer),  "  in  Migne's  edition,  is  a  tyjiographical  error.  The  Latin  translation 
in  the  parallel  column  does  not  recognize  it,  and  renders  the  passage  as  I 
do." 


54  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  X. 
Judith's  baptism  at  the  FomsrTAiN. 

WHETHER  the  apocryphal  "  Judith  "  be  a  figment  of  the 
author's  brain  or  not,  we  shall  here  regard  it  as  veritable 
history.  Judith,  a  very  rich  and  beautiful  widow,  of  determined 
character,  and  excessive  religious  zeal,  lived  in  Bethulia,  a  moun- 
tain-fastness in  the  northern  part  of  Palestine.  The  Assyrian 
army,  under  Gen.  Holofernes,  lading  siege  to  this  place,  had 
encamped  in  the  adjacent  valley  {aulbn) ,  and  taking  possession  of 
"the  fountains  of  the  waters,-"  whence  the  Bethulians  had  their 
suppl}",  had  reduced  them  almost  to  the  point  of  surrender.  To 
avert  so  great  a  calamity,  and  to  staj^  the  further  progress  of  the 
enemj',  she  obtained  permission  to  visit  the  Assyrian  camp  ;  and 
having  made  herself  attractive  by  dress  and  jewelry,  and  taking 
with  herself  her  waiting-maid,  bearing  a  bag  of  provisions,  she 
gained  entrance  into  the  camp  of  the  Assyrians,  and  by  her 
wisdom  and  her  charms  easily  won  the  general  and  his  army  to 
her  side.  Still  professing  to  be  most  godty,  and  that  she  left  her 
cit}'^  onl}'  because  it  was  doomed  to  destruction  by  reason  of  their 
sins,  she  jet,  hy  lying  and  deceit,  on  which  she  had  asked  God's 
blessing,  (  ! )  gained  the  general's  confidence,  and  even  proposed 
to  tell  him,  in  answer  to  prayer,  the  time  when,  and  the  method 
wherebj^,  he  could  easily  .capture  Bethulia,  and  even  Jerusalem 
'tself.  She  obtained  the  general's  consent  to  go  forth  nightly  into 
the  valle}^  {j^haranx)  for  pra5'er.  ' '  And  Holofernes  commanded 
the  body-guards  not  to  hinder  her ;  and  she  remained  in  the 
camp  three  da3's,  and  went  forth  by  night  into  the  vaUey  of 
Bethulia,  and  bcqotized  herself  in  the  camp  at  the  fountain.  And, 
when  she  came  up,  she  besought  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  to  direct 
her  waj'  for  the  raising  up  of  the  sons  of  his  people.     And,  enter- 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  55 

ing  in  pure,  she  remained  in  the  tent  till  one  brought  her  food 
at  evening"  (Jud.  xii.  7-9  ;  C.  174).  Farther  on  we  read,  that, 
on  the  fourth  day,  the  general  made  a  banquet  (which  Judith 
attended  in  person) ,  and  becoming  exceedingly  drunk  at  night,  — 
"  buried  in  sleep  and  wine,"  — Judith,  going  to  his  bedside,  took 
his  sword,  and,  with  pra^'er  to  God  for  strength,  "■  she  smote  twice 
upon  his  neck  with  aU  her  might,"  and  cut  off  his  head.  This  she 
gave  to  her  maid,  who  put  it  into  her  bag  of  provisions  ;  and  then 
"  they  twain  went  out  together,  according  to  their  custom,  unto 
pra3^er ;  and,  when  they  passed  the  camp,  they  compassed  the 
valley"  {pharanx),  "and  went  up  the  mountain  of  Bethulia" 
(Jud.  xiii.  10). 

We  are  now  prepared  to  consider  the  question.  What  did  Judith 
do  when  she  went  out  with  her  maid  (see  Jud.  xiii.  10)  by  night 
into  the  valle}^  of  Bethulia,  and  baptized  herself  in  the  camp  at 
(epi)  the  fountain  of  water?  In  reference  to  the  last  clause,  we 
remark  that  two  or  three  versions  besides  our  own  render  it,  "  in 
the  fountain  of  water."  As  we,  in  conmaon  with  Baptist  writers 
genera^,  do  not  approve  of  subjecting  the  prepositions  to  too 
great  a  strain,  we  rather  adhere  to  the  idea  that  she  baptized  her- 
self in  a  pool  or  reservoir  near  the  spring,  and  fed  by  the  spring. 
No  one  could  object  that  this  would  not  be  a  baptizing  at  the 
fountain.  Had  it,  however,  been  plainly  stated,  as  in  English, 
that  "Judith  immersed  herself  at  the  fountain,"  no  one,  we 
suppose,  would  conjecture  that  she  there  poured  water  upon  her- 
self, or  sprinkled  herself  with  water.  The  more  serious  difficulty 
in  the  way  of  viewing  this  baptism  as  a  fuU  immersion  is  the  fact 
of  its  performance  in  the  camp,  and  at  a  fountain  which  was 
probably  garrisoned  or  guarded  hj  soldiers. 

Let  us  first  ascertain  more  definitely",  if  we  can,  where  this 
praying  and  baptizing  place  was.  We  read  that  it  was  in  the 
"valley."  But  in  vii.  3,  17  (so  x.  11),  the  word  for  the  valley 
where  the  Assyrians  encamped  is  anion;  while  the  vaUej'  of 
pra^'er  and  baptism  is  three  times  designated  b}'  a  different  name, 
pharanx,  which  we  shaU  regard  as,  perhaps,  a  secluded  ra^dne  in 
this  general  valle3^•  Was,  now,  this  ravine  inside,  or  outside,  the 
camp?  Its  first  mention  in  xi.  17  leaves  this  question  undecided. 
Its  second  mention  is  in  the  passage  under  consideration :  ' '  She 
went  out  by  night  into  the  ravine,  and  baptized  herself  in  the  camp, 


56  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

at  the  fountain."  If  this  fountain  was  in  the  ravine,  then,  accord- 
ing to  the  received  reading,  this  ra\ine,  in  part  at  least,  must  have 
been  in  the  camp.  In  one  manuscript,  and  two  of  the  oldest  ver- 
sions, this  phrase,  "in  the  camp,*'  is  omitted.  The  word  occurs 
finally  in  xiii.  10  ;  and  here  we  learn,  that  when  the  "  twain  went 
out  together,  according  to  their  custom,  unto  jorajer,"  they  did  not 
apparent!}'  reach  the  ravine  till  they  had  passed  the  camp.  Liter- 
allj'  rendered,  the  passage  reads  thus  :  "  Passing  through  the  camp, 
they  went  round  that  ravine."  In  view  of  this  last  statement,  I 
am  almost  inclined  to  believe  that  the  phrase  "  in  the  camp  "  is  an 
interpolation,  and  that  the  two  oldest  versions,  the  Syriac  and 
Latin,  had  good  reasons  for  leaving  it  out.  For  it  is  in  evidence 
that  Judith  could  leave  the  camp  whenever  she  chose ;  and  that 
when  she  and  her  maid  went  out  together  for  the  last  time,  and 
passed  through  the  camp,  if  the  soldiers  took  any  notice  of  them, 
they  e\'idently  thought  that  these  women  were  going  out,  "  accord- 
ing to  their  custom,"  to  the  ravine  (see  xiii.  10).  "And,  when 
thej  had  passed  through  the  camp,  they  compassed  the  ravine," 
which  Judith  was  accustomed  to  visit  nightlj^  for  prayer  and  bath- 
ing. If  we  retain  the  usual  reading,  the  only  wa}^  of  avoiding  a 
direct  contradiction,  as  it  seems  to  me,  is  to  suppose  that  the 
ravine  lay  partly  within  and  partly  without  the  camp,  and  that 
they  could  speak  looselj'  of  each  part  as  a  whole. 

But  supposing  this  ravine  oratory,  or  baptistery  at  least,  is  said 
to  be  in  the  camp.  Have  not  our  friends  told  us,  times  without 
number,  that  en,  in  connection  with  haptizo,  does  not  alwa^'s  mean 
in?  that  in  water  means  with  water?  that  in  the  river  means  at  or 
near  the  river?  and  that  m  Jordan  means  ai  or  ?iear  the  Jordan, 
or  in  "Jordan  dale,"  or  "Jordan  region," — i.e.,  in  the  vicinity 
of  Jordan  ?  And  so  wiU  they  not  allow  that  Judith  bathed  herself 
neay^  or  in  the  vicinit}^  of  the  camp,  or  "  bj'  the  camp,"  as  in  our 
version,  and  still  outside  of  "it?  Most  certainly,  with  their 
manipulating  tactics,  so  long  exercised  among  the  prepositions, 
the}'  can  easily  remove  the  ' '  in  the  camp  ' '  a  considerable  distance 
outside  of  it !  Still  they  may  say  that  the  fountain,  even  if  outside 
the  camp,  was  probably-  garrisoned  or  watched  by  soldiers,  and 
thus  would  be  an  unsuitable  place  for  a  female  to  bathe  herself.^ 

1  Hutchings  bears  false  witness  against  Carson  (unwitting^,  we  hope) 
when  lie  says,   "  The  fact  that  bands  of  soldiers  were  stationed  to  guard  the 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  57 

"We  may  be  sure,  iia  any  case,  that  Judith  did  7iot  expose  herself 
to  the  gaze  of  soldiers,  even  if  they  were  there,  and  it  were  light 
enough  for  them  to  see.  Judith  was,  in  realitj^,  the  general  in  the 
camp  while  she  staid  there  ;  and  any  garrison  of  soldiers  Vv'ould 
doubtless  have  to  retire  at  her  request.  So  far,  then,  as  our  theory 
is  concerned,  we  are  not  at  all  anxious  as  to  the  matter  of  the 
locality  of  her  bathing-place  ;  for  we  believe  that  she  could  find  a 
secure  and  secluded  place  in  that  ravine  both  for  pra^-er  and  loath- 
ing cell  to  herself.  If,  then,  Jcnotvn  circumstances  do  not  prove  her 
immersion  in  the  camp  an  impossibility,  we  maintain  that  her  self- 
baptism  '■^demands  intusposition"  in  water.  And  so,  after  her 
baptism,  it  is  said  "  she  came  up;  "  to  wit,  from  the  water.  Both 
our  English  version,  and  De  Wette  in  his  "  Pleilige  Schiift,"  render 
it,  "  when  she  came  out :  "  and  Fritzsche  supplies  eJc  tou  hudatos; 
that  is,  when  she  came  up  out  of  the  water.  This  word  anahaino 
is  the  same  as  that  which  the  evangelists  use  to  express  the  coming 
up  of  Jesus  out  of  and  from  the  water,  for  which  Justin  Martj'r,  as 
Carson  tells  us,  employs  anaduntos  apo,  "emerging  from"  the 
water.  Dale  says,  the  word  might  be  used  of  her  coming  up  from 
the  valley  (ravine) .  But  the  whole  camp,  we  recollect,  was  pitched 
' '  in  the  valley  ; ' '  and  we  never  read  of  her  going  down  or  descend- 
inginto  this  ra-^dne,  but  always  of  her  going  forth  or  out  to  it,  as  if 
it  lay  without  the  camp.  In  x.  3  we  read,  that,  when  Judith  was 
making  preparation  to  visit  the  camp,  "  she  put  off  the  garments 
of  her  widowhood,  and  washed  her  body  all  over  with  water,"  and 
this  in  the  same  manner  as  Tobias  did  in  the  River  Tigris  (Tob. 
vi.  2) .     i  imagine  that  a  no  less  thorough  ablution  would  satisfy 

fountain"  (chap.  vii.  7)  "does  not  stand  in  the  way:  he"  (Carson)  "sees 
nothing  in  this  to  make  it  indelicate  for  her  thus  to  expose  herself.''  For 
Carson  asserts  that  "the  most  scrupulous  and  even  romantic  dehcacy  is  pro- 
vided for  in  the  retirement  of  the  lady ; "  and  that,  "  had  she  been  the  wife  of 
the  general,  she  could  not  have  had  greater  security  for  privacy,  nor  better 
means  of  effecting  it."  Wliat  he  does  say,  to  give  any  apparent  ground  for 
Hutchings's  representation,  so  far  as  I  have  seen,  is  this :  "  I  care  not  in  the 
least  degree  hoio  any  one  may  decide  as  to  views  of  delicacy  in  this  matter. 
However  indelicate  any  one  may  choose  to  consider  the  conduct  of  Judith, 
the  fact  is  in  proof;  and  I  will  not  suffer"  (other  people's)  "views  of 
delicacy  to  question  it."  Surely  this  is  not  saying,  that,  in  Carson's  opinion, 
she  "  thus  exposed  herself  "  in  fact,  or  that  such  exposure  in  his  view  would 
not  he  "  indelicate." 


58  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

this  whole-souled  religious  zealot,  living,  as  she  then  was,  in 
heathenish  pollutions.  To  Professor  Conant's  remark,  that  "  any 
other  use  of  water  for  purification  could  have  been  made  in  her 
tent,"  Dale  replies,  that  a  woman  of  her  rehgious  faith  and  zeal, 
who  would  not  even  taste  the  provisions  of  the  general's  table, 
might  desire  a  water  of  purification  purer  than  that  of  the  tent, 
and  wholly  "free  from  heathenish  pollution."  True;  and  I  see 
not  why  she  could  not  obtain  water  from  the  spring,  —  enough,  at 
least,  for  a  shght  sprinkling,  either  in  the  vessels  they  took  with 
them,  or  in  vessels  which  they  might  borrow  and  purify.  Even 
Judith  did  not  refuse  the  use  of  ever}^  thing  offered  her ;  for  she 
both  ate  and  slept  on  their  heathen  fleeces. 

Of  course  we  understand  that  Judith  baptized  herself  at  the 
spring  for  the  purpose  of  purification.  She  went  to  the  spring,  and 
bathed  herself  there  for  that  purpose.  But  is  this  design  or  effect 
really  expressed  in  the  word  "  bathed,"  any  more  than  in  the  word 
"  went "  ?  Cannot  a  person  "  bathe  "  in  the  waters  of  pollution 
as  well  as  in  the  waters  of  purit}^  ? 

And  of  course,  too,  we  understand  that "  something  besides 
Bethulia's  spring-water  was  needed  to  cleanse  this  woman's  soul 
from  the  guilt  of  the  l}i.ng  and  deceit  which  she,  in  her  misguided 
religious  zeal,  perpetrated  for  the  glory  of  God  and  the  good  of 
Zion. 

Many  other  instances  of  females  bathing  "at  the  fountain" 
might  be  given  both  from  the  classic  page  and  from  Christian  his- 
tory. "We  mention  but  one  instance,  occurring  in  more  modern 
times, — that  of  the  baptizing,  by  Bishop  Patricius  (St.  Patrick), 
of  Ethna  and  Fethlema,  daughters  of  King  Laoghaire,  at  the  Pool 
Clebach,  in  Connaught.  From  Cusack's  "Life  of  St.  Patrick," 
p.  291,  seq.,  we  learn  that  "  women  were  accustomed  to  bathe  at 
sunrise  at  the  Fountain  Clebach,  on  the  slope  of  the  royal  fort  or 
palace  of  Cruachen."  But  in  what  "mode"  were  the  king's 
daughters  baptized  ?  We  ourselves  are  not  sure  as  to  this  point ; 
but  we  are  sure  that  then-  baptismal  act  involved  an  intusposition 
in  water.  Baptizo  has  always  had  a  local  affinity  for  seas  and 
lakes,  and  rivers  and  pools,  and  "  much  water,"  and  cannot  with- 
out some  difficulty  be  withdrawn  from  such  localities.  This  was 
certainly  true  in  TertuUian's  day;  for  he  says,  "It  makes  no 
difference  whether  a  man  be  washed  "  {diluo)  "  in  a  sea  or  a  pool, 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  59 

a  stream  or  a  fount,  a  lake  or  a  trough ;  "  (how  is  it  that  he  did 
not  add,  or  sprinlded  from  a  basin  ?  or  be  eontroUingl}-  influenced 
without  washing?)  "nor  is  there  any  distinction  between  those 
whom  John  immersed  "  (tingo)  "in  the  Jordan,  or  Peter  in  the 
Tiber."  ^  St.  Patrick's  baptizo  also  had  a  similar  attachment  for 
pools  and  rivers  :  and,  on  the  very  page  from  which  we  extracted 
the  above  narrative,  a  contemporary  of  St.  Patrick's  is  introduced 
as  speaking  of  the  many  places  made  fragrant  by  the  saint's 
memory,  mentioning  hiU  and  dale,  &c. ;  and  among  the  rest  he 
adds,  "J?z  that  river  he  baptized  thousands."  ^ 

1  "  Nulla  distiuctio  est  mari  quis  an  stagno,  flumine  an  fonte,  lacu  an 
alveo  diluatur,  nee  quicquam  refert  inter  eos  quos  Joannes  in  Jordane,  et 
quos  Petrus  in  Tiberi  tinxit"  (De  Baptismo,  cap.  iv.).  Our  friends  may, 
perhaps,  be  thankful  for  Tertullian's  wash,  a  favorite  word  with  them,  as  it 
allows  of  almost  "  any  application  of  water;"  though  to  us  it  has  a  carnal 
sound.  Still  Tertullian's  washing  was  by  immersion;  and  Alcuin  (C.  216) 
speaks  of  washing  with  a  trine  immersion,  trina  mersione  abluendus. 
"Perfusion"  also  is  not  a  "  sprinkling,"  aspersio,  as  Dale  would  sometimes 
have  it,  nor  always  a  mere  pouring,  but  frequently  a  bathing,  as  in  a  bath  or 
river.     Yet  is  sprinkling,  or  even  pouring,  a  natural  method  of  washing  ? 

2  Dr.  Dale,  we  suppose,  will  interpret  the  phrase,  "in  that  river,"  as 
meaning  "by"  that  river,  and  as  indicative  of  agency  rather  than  locality. 
At  least,  he  takes  almost  unbounded  pains  to  render,  wherever  possible,  in  as 
meaning  by  in  every  case  of  baptism  (forgetting  all  about  the  "  vital  "  idea 
of  iJi^Msposition) ;  and  it  is  in  this  way  that  he  interprets  Origen's  declara- 
tion in  regard  to  the  baptism  of  Elijah  "  in  the  Jordan."  He  says,  "  1.  The 
baptism  was  effected  by  a  peculiar  influence,  attributed  to  water,  and  not 
by  water  as  a  simple  fluid ;  2.  The  baptism  was  effected  by  Jordan  as  a 
whole,  and  not  by  any  portion  of  it"  !  Still  he  will  not  absolutely  deny  that 
a  baptism  maybe  effected  "m  the  Jordan,"  and  yet  be  effected  "by  the 
Jordan  influence." 

If  any  one  wislies  to  know  more  concerning  the  "  mode  "  of  St.  Patrick's 
baptisms,  we  would  refer  him  to  Dr.  W.  Cathcart's  Baptism  of  the  Ages, 
p.  62,  seq.  We  may  here  remark,  that  many  things  reported  of  this  saint's 
life  and  labors  —  including  even  some  occurrences  connected  with  the  bap- 
tism of  the  king's  two  daughters  —  sound  somewhat  apocryphal  to  Protes- 
tant ears. 


60  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  XI. 


INTOXICATING   BAPTISMS. 


ON  p.  626  of  "Christie  and  Patristic  Baptism,"  Dr.  Dale's 
last  volume,  he  says,  ^^  Baptizo,  to  make  drunk,  among  the 
Greeks,  and  baptizo,  to  make  ceremonial!}'  pure,  are  certainly 
widely  divergent  meanings  ;  but  each  is  legitimately  reached,  and 
under  precisely  the  same  laws  of  language."  While  assenting  to 
the  general  truth  of  this  statement,  we  would  enter  a  caveat  against 
the  possibly  implied  idea  that  baptizo,  loj  itself  and  apart  from  aU 
connection,  ever  has  or  ever  can  have  as  its  .specific  meaning 
either  to  intoxicate  or  to  purify.  A  word  which  properly  means 
to  drown,  or  which  property  means  to  intoxicate,  can  never  have 
the  meaning  to  purify ;  and  so  vice  versa.  And  yet  baptizo,  in 
different  connections,  denotes  the  putting  of  a  person,  not  only  in  a 
state  of  purit}',  but  a  condition  of  intoxication.  Of  this  latter  use 
of  baptizo  there  are  nearly  a  score  of  examples  (C.  95,  118-120, 
122,  142-151,  160,  165)  ;  and  it  is  from  this  kind  of  baptism 
especially  that  Dr.  Dale  seeks  to  overthrow  the  Baptist  theory, 
and  establish  his  own.  For  in  an  intoxicating  baptism  there  is  no 
plunging  bodily  as  into  a  full  wine-cask,  there  is  no  ph^'sical  intus- 
position  or  envelopment,  and  no  dipping :  it  is  "  influence  without 
intusposition,"  and  the  "mode"  of  baptism  is  by  drinking! 
Where,  now,  is  Carson's  baptismal  "dip,  and  nothing  but  dip, 
through  all  Greek  literature  "  ?  Or  is  there,  in  these  drinking  bap- 
tisms, a  sly  reference  to  the  dipping  of  a  bowl  into  one's  mouth? 
But,  alas  for  our  theory,  this  might  be  called  a  pouring  baptism ! 
But  one  thing  is  certain,  that  neither  in  "  aU  Greek  literature," 
nor  in  any  other  literature  under  the  sun,  do  we  read  of  an  intoxi- 
cating baptism  effected  by  sprinkling,  or  can  we  an3-where  point  to 
a  place  where  rhantized  stands  for  or  means  "  intoxicated."     Let 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  61 

us  first  look  at  the  usages  of  Our  own  language.  "We  have  such 
metaphorical  expressions  as  "  sunk  in  sleep,"  "buried  in  sleep," 
"  drowned  in  sorrow  ;  "  so  also  "  drowned  in  his  cups,"  "  steeped 
in  spirits,"  "soaked  in  rum,"  "drenched  in  wine,"  &c.  Well, 
here  we  have,  if  not  a  literal  intusposition  in  liquor,  at  least  the 
idea  of  a  very  thorough  wetting  and  soaking  ;  in  fact,  a  figurative 
baptism  :  and  the  idea  seems  to  be,  that  the  drunken  man  is,  as  it 
were,  immersed  in  and  saturated  with  liquor,  soaked  inside  and 
outside,  through  and  through.  And  though  there  is  no  literal  im- 
mersion of  the  drunken  man  in  wine  or  other  intoxicating  liquors, 
yet  is  he,  with  all  his  faculties  of  body,  mind,  and  soul,  completely 
intusposed  in,  or  overwhelmed  by  (and  thus  entirely  pervaded  by), 
the  inebriating  influence  of  such  liquors  ;  which  influence  is  here 
conceived  of  as  a  baptismal  element.  This  idea,  then,  of  bap- 
tismal intusposition  in  a  fluid'  element,  is  the  ver}^  thing  we  want 
to  indicate  the  state  or  condition  of  the  drunkards'  ^'■drenched 
natures  ;"  the  very  thing  which  will  alone  explain  the  figure,  and 
give  it  force  and  aptness.  Shakspeare  is  our  sufficient  authority 
for  a  drowning  baptism  of  drunkenness.  "What  is  a  drunken 
man  like?  Like  a  drowned  man,  a  fool,  and  a  madman.  One 
draught  above  heat  makes  him  a  fool,  the  second  mads  him,  and  a 
third  drowns  him." 

The  editor  of  Calmet's  "  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  "  (C.  Taylor), 
in  view  of  these  baptisms  of  drunlienness,  asks,  "What,  now, 
becomes  of  x>lunging  ?  Is  that  the  only  way  in  which  a "  person 
may  prove  ^beside  himself  V  ("Apostolic  Baptism,"  p.  136.) 
In  repl}' ,  we  should  say  that  there  was  at  least  one  other  waj',  as 
illustrated  hy  Mr.  Tajior  himself;  for  how  can  a  man  be  in  his 
senses  who  holds,  as  Taylor  does,  "  that  plungixg  is  one  sense  of 
the  term  baptism^''  but  maintains  that  pouring  is  the  proper  and 
specific  mode  or  act  of  haptizo,  and  at  the  same  time  interprets 
this  wine-baptism  to  be  a  "discoloration"  or  "  perturbation"  of 
mind,  and  makes  the  drunken  man  say,  "  I  was  stained,  discolored, 
being  a  very  difl'erent  man  from  what  I  am  when  sober  "  ?  —  See  his 
"  Apostolic  Baptism,"  p.  133. 

Latin  literature  also  abounds  in  similar  figures.  In  fact,  almost 
every  word  which  signifies  to  wet,  moisten,  soak,  drench,  or 
bury,  is  figurativel}-  applied  to  the  inebriate.  The  duplicate  of 
the   Greek,  "baptized  in  wine   and   sleep,"  is  found  in   Livy's 


62  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

'■^  mersus  vino  somnoqzce,"  or  in  Virgil's  ^'-  somno  vinoque  sepul 
tus;  "  that  is,  immersed  and  buried  in  sleep  and  wine.  Seneca 
speaks  of  i]x&  potatio  qum  onergit, — the  drink  which  immerses. 
Vino  obrutus  means  covered  over  with,  and  thus  buried  in,  wine. 
"Words  significant  of  wetting,  such  as  uviclus,  macleo,  madens, 
madidus,  madef actus,  are  quite  constantly  applied  to  intoxicated 
persons.  Martial  spe^-ks  of  lana  sanguine  conchce  ebria, — wool 
drunk  with  the  blood  of  the  shell-fish.  Was  not  the  wool  said  to 
be  "  di'unk"  with  blood,  from  its  being  baptized  in  it,  or  soaked 
with  it  ? 

If  we  turn  to  Greek  literature,  we  find,  besides  bajytizo,  the  word 
hreclio  (to  wet  or  moisten),  and  so  JiupohrecJio,  applied  to  inebri- 
ates :  its  perfect  passive  participle,  meaning  "  the  soaked,"  stands, 
just  like  the  same  form  of  haptizo,  for  "  intoxicated."  Of  com'se 
it  is  fi'om  the  connection  of  the  words,  and  from  attending  circum- 
stances, that  we  venture  to  assign  in  any  case  such  a  meaning  to 
brecJio  or  baptizo.  And  now  shall  I  ask  if  brecho  also  has  lost  its 
native  meaning,  and  acquired  that  of  influence?  Have  all  the 
Latin  and  Enghsh  verbs  and  participles  we  have  referred  to  parted 
with  their  original  and  proper  meanings  for  that  of  a  mere  general 
controlling  influence,  "by  whatsoever  agencj',  or  in  whatsoever 
way,  effected  ' '  ?  The  mere  asking  of  the  question  canies  its  own 
sufficient  answer,  and  gives,  in  fact,  the  refutation  to  the  whole  of 
Dale's  baptizing-influence  theory.  Of  com'se,  every  strong  verb 
in  use  will  effect  some  change,  and  exert  some  influence  ;  and,  of 
course,  an  object  intusposed  within  an  element  will  commonly 
receive  and  be  pervaded  by  an  influence  arising  from  this  encom- 
passing element ;  and  by  tliis  ' '  influence ' '  the  condition  of  the 
immersed  (baptized  or  bapted)  object  maj'  be  changed.  But  this 
"influence,"  imparted  to  a  baptized  object  by  the  baptizing  or 
enveloping  element,  does  not  oblige  us  to  ignore  as  obsolete  and 
dead  the  original  and  fundamental  meaning  of  the  word  ' '  bap- 
tize," whose  act  alone  is  causative  of  "influence."  Carson  held 
to  an  influence  theorj^  of  baptism  not  less  firmlj'  than  does  Dr. 
Dale ;  and  we  know  not  but  that  our  author  derived  both  the 
"  intusposition  "  and  the  "  controUing  influence"  of  his  baptizo 
direct  from  the  Tubbermore  Baptist  divine.  Speaking  of  "  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit"  (p.  104),  Carson  says,  "That  which  is 
immersed  in  a  liquid  is  completely  subjected  to  its  influence,  and 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  63 

imbued  with  its  virtues :  so,  to  he  immersed  in  the  Spirit  represents 
the  subjection  of  body,  soul,  and  spirit  to  his  influence."  And 
on  p.  80  he  says,  "Now,  baptized  into  sleep"  (through  drunken- 
ness) "is  exactly"  our  figure  buried  in  sZeep,  which  is  an  immer- 
sion. ...  Is  there  an}-  likeness  between  pouring  and  sleeping? 
Is  not  the  lilieness  between  complete  subjection  to  the  influence  of 
sleep  and  the  complete  subjection  of  an  object  to  the  influence  of  a 
liquid  when  immersed  in  it?  "  In  like  manner,  "  when  bapjtizo  is 
apphed  to  drunl?;enness,  it  is  taken  figuratiyel^" ;  and  the  point  of 
resemblance  is  between  a  man  completely  under  the  influence  of 
wine  and  an  object  completely  subjected  to  a  hquid  in  which  it  is 
wholly  immersed."  The  deflnition  (not  wholly  objectionable) 
which  Dale  himself  would  assign  to  the  phrase  "baptized  with 
wine  "  — to  wit,  "  brought  thoroughly  under  the  dominion  and  in- 
fluence of"  liquor  —  is  wholly  compatible  ■with  the  idea  of  immer- 
sion and  covering,  and  cannot,  in  this  case,  appl}-  to  any  slight 
wetting  or  spriuliling.  To  be  merely  sprinkled  with  wine  would 
amount  to  no  ver}^  serious  degree  of  intoxication ;  and  jet  it  is 
in  view  of  such  baptisms  of  influence  as  this  of  drankeuness  that 
Dale  asserts,  "  If,  in  the  development  of  language,  any  word  ever 
lost  an  element "  (the  condition  of  envelopment)  "  which  was  its 
original,  grand,  sole  characteristic,  such  a  word  is  baptizo."  If 
this  is  so,  we  can  only  sa}'  that  there  has  been  a  shocking  loss  of 
original,  grand,  characteristic  meanings  in  all  languages  since  the 
world  began. ^ 

1  A  quotation  or  two  from  Dr.  Dale  will  show  the  great  importance  he 

attaches  to  these  mtoxicating  baptisms  as  proving  his  "  influence  theoiy." 

"  Is  not  wine  a  physical  element  ?  Is  not  blood  a  physical  element  ? 
Ai'e  not  tears  a  physical  element  ?  And  are  not  all  these  used  scores  of 
times  in  baptisms  where  there  is  no  dipping  or  phj'sical  covering?"  [We 
may  here  remark,  that  the  baptisms  of  "  tears  "  and  of  "  blood  "  are  found 
chiefly  in  the  writings  of  the  patrists,  or  church  fathers,  who,  as  all  are 
aware,  were  wont  to  find  many  types  or  images  of  baptism  in  the  heavens 
above  and  in  the  earth  beneath.  With  the  fathers,  this  baptism  of 
"tears,"  viewed  as  an  overwhelming  flood  of  sorrow  for  sin,  was  possessed 
of  an  efficacy  akin  to  that  of  the  divinely-instituted  water-baptism;  and 
Cjin-ian  says,  "The  fire  of  hell  is  extinguished  by  the  bath  of  saving 
water."  But,  says  Gregory  of  Nazianzum,"How  many  tears  have  we  to 
shed  before  they  equal  the  flood  of  the  baptismal  bath!"  (see  Hagenbach's  • 
History  of  Doctrines,  vol.  i.  pp.  198,  .389.)  The  baptism  of  "blood,"  or 
martyrdom,  viewed  as  an  overwhelming  flood  of  suffering  for  Christ,  was 


64  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

deemed  specially  meritorious,  and  fully  as  efficacious  as  tlie  bath  of  regen- 
eration. Thus  Augustine  (in  his  City  of  God,  lib.  siii.  chap,  vii.)  says, 
"  Quicunque  etiam  non  percepto  regenerationis  lavacro  pro  confessione 
Christi  moriuntur,  tantum  eis  valet  ad  dimittenda  peccata  quantum  si 
abluerentur  sacro  lonte  baptismatis;"  i.e.,  "  Djdng for  Christ  avails  as  much 
to  the  martyrs  for  the  remission  of  their  sins  as  if  they  had  been  cleansed 
in  the  sacred  font  of  baptism."  It  was  this  baptism  which  saved  the  peni- 
tent thief;  though  Augustine  (in  his  Eetractationes)  thinks  that,  possibly, 
he  may  have  been  previously  baptized.  In  comparison  with  the  baj)tism  of 
water,  it  is,  according  to  Cyprian,  who  himself  was  called  to  experience  this 
baptism,  "In  gratia  majus,  in  potestate  sublimius,  in  honore  pretiosius. 
...  In  aquos  baptismo  accipitur  peccatorum  remissa,  in  sangiiinis  corona 
virtutum"  (Hagenbach,  vol.  i.  p.  214).  ISo  one,  we  presume,  will  question 
the  appropriateness  of  the  phrases,  "  bathed  or  immersed  in  tears,"  "  bathed 
or  immersed  in  blood,"  when  used  to  denote  an  overwhelming  flood  and 
weight  of  sorrow  or  of  suffering;  while  every  one  would  question  whether 
a  mere  sprinkling  with  tears  or  blood  were,  in  this  connection,  a  very  ex- 
pressive or  appropriate  figure.  But  we  must  limit  ourselves  now  to  wine 
baptisms,  and  our  readers  will  pardon  us  for  making  a  somewhat  lengthy 
quotation.] 

"  Quantity  of  water  can  show  that  there  was  enough  for  a  dipping  or  a 
drowning,  if  there  was  any  disposition  to  use  it  for  such  a  purpose ;  but  it 
can  never  prove  any  such  use  in  fact.  Alexander  of  Pherse  "  (see  Conant's 
Eaptizein,  Ex.  149,  where  it  is  naiTated  that  Thebe  baptized  her  husband, 
Alexander,  the  tyrant  of  Pherse,  not  into  nor  in,  but  "with  much  wine," 
in  order  to  his  assassination)  "had  a  sufficient  quantity  of  wine  in  his 
vaults  to  have  sufficed  for  the  dipping  of  himself,  or  of  any  number  be- 
sides ;  and  we  are  told  that  he  was,  in  fact,  baptized  by  much  wine;  and  yet 
he  was  not  dipped  in  wine  to  the  extent  of  the  tip  of  his  finger. 

"  I^ow,  apply  to  this  transaction  the  reasoning  of  the"  (Baptist)  "theory, 
'  Wine  is  a  fluid  suitable  for  dipping  into.  We  are  expressly  told  that  Alex- 
ander was  baptized,  and  therefore  dipped ;  for  baptize  means  nothing  but 
dip.  There  was  no  lack  of  wine  for  the  dipping,  as  we  are  distinctly  told 
there  was  much  wine'  (this  is  an  offset  to  the  "much  water"  of  ^non), 
'  and  that  much  wine  was  used  in  the  baptism.' 

"  On  Baptist  principles  we  are  shut  up  to  the  putting  of  Alexander  in 
this  much  wine,  where  he  must  be  disowned  (according  to  the  legitimate 
force  of  the  terms)  as  was  the  Duke  of  Clarence,  or  be  saved  by  some  for- 
eign intervention.  .  .  .  The  facts  of  the  case  were,  that  Alexander  was  bap- 
tized by  drinking  (not  by  being  dipped  into)  this  'much  wine,'  and,  when 
thus  thoroughly  baptized,  was  murdered. 

"  iSTow,  what  element  of  proof  for  a  dipping  into  water  can  be  found  in 
this  ^non  baptism,  which  does  not  appear  for  a  dipping  into  wine  in  this 
Pherge  baptism  ?  Is  water,  by  its  fluid  nature,  suitable  for  dipping  into  ? 
So  is  wine.  Was  there  'much  water'  in  ^non?  So  there  was  'much 
wine '  in  Pherse.  Is  baptize  competent  to  dip,  to  cover  over  ?  It  was 
equally  present  in  both  cases.     Have  men  been  put  into  water  of  literal 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  65 

fact?  So  have  they  been  put  into  wine."  [Dr.  Dale  only  needs  to  show 
that  this  was  the  usual  method  of  baptizing  with  wine,  to  make  his  argu- 
ment thoroughly  convincing.]  "  What,  then,  I  ask,  was  the  discriminating 
difference  in  the  two  cases,  which  gives  certain  proof  that  the  ^non  disciple 
must  be  baptized  by  dipping,  while  the  Pherse  tyrant  was  effectually  bap- 
tized by  drinking  ? 

"I  will  venture  the  affimiation  that  there  is  not  one  word  in  this  account 
of  the  baptism  at  iEnon  which  would  prevent  John  using  the  water  in  pre- 
cisely the  same  manner  that  Alexander  used  the  wine;  namely,  by  drinking  : 
and,  if  he  had  so  used  it,  haptizo  would  have  kept  an  everlasting  silence  as 
having  no  concern  in  the  matter  "  ( Johannic  Baptism,  p.  318).  [If  this  last 
assertion  be  correct,  then  I  have  this  to  say,  that  haptizo  itself  has  become 
intoxicated,  or  else  it  is  drowned  and  dead  forever!  But,  by  the  way,  it 
would  seem  that  drinking  was  becoming  a  favorite  mode  of  baptism  with 
Dr.  Dale.  He  says  that  "one  drop  of  prussic  acid"  {swallowed,  we  sup- 
pose, though  the  mode  is  left  very  indefinite:  an  external  application  of  it, 
or  a  breathing  of  its  vapor,  exerts  a  very  controlling  influence)  "is  as  thor- 
oughly competent  to  effect  a  baptism  secondary  (perhaps  the  more  common 
form  of  baptism  expressed  by  the  Greeks)  as  is  an  ocean  to  effect  a  baptism 
primary."  The  Saviour's  dreaded  baptism,  we  are  told,  was  experienced  by 
His  drinking  of  the  "  cup."'  According  to  Dr.  Dale's  interpolated  version, 
our  Saviour's  query  thus  reads:  "  Can  ye  drink  of  the  cu]p  of  penal  woe  of 
which  I  drink,  and  thereby  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  into  an  atoning 
death  with  which  I  am  baptized?"  Strange  that  the  word  for  "thereby" 
should  be  so  often  wanting  in  the  original,  where  Dale's  influence  theory 
makes  it  necessary;  as  in  our  Lord's  commission:  "Go,  disciple  all  the 
nations,  and  thereby  baptize  them."  "  He  that  believeth,  and  is  thereby  bap- 
tized, shall  be  saved."  "  Kepent,  and  be  thereby  baptized,"  &c. !  Strange, 
also,  is  it  that  an  intoxicating  or  stupefying  drinking-cup  must  be  brought 
into  figure  forth  the  overwhelming  flood  of  "penal  woe"  wherewith  our 
Saviour  was  baptized!  —  a  baptism  of  overwhelming  suffering  and  sorrow 
which  we  are  thankful  did  not  last  forever.  And  now  we  have  a  water- 
baptism,  effected  by  drinking  water;  whether  much  or  little,  is  not  definitely 
stated.  Luciau,  we  are  aware,  speaking  of  the  fabled  (intoxicating)  Foun- 
tain of  Silenus,  says,  that  when  an  old  man  drinks  of  it,  and  Silenus  (a 
quasi  Bacchus)  takes  possession  of  him,  he  immediately  becomes  mute,  and 
resejn?>Zes  a  baptized  (wine-soaked)  man  (C.  148).  But  will  Dr.  Dale  com- 
pare this  Silenic  water  to  the  pure  living  water  of  ^non's  springs,  and 
afl&rm  that  a  water-baptism  at  ^non  may  be  effected  in  the  same  way  ^s  a 
baptism  (or  quasi  baptism)  at  the  Fountain  of  Silenus  ?  in  other  words,  that 
drinking  pure  spring-water  will  baptize  ?  Our  Episcopal  clergy  are  accus- 
tomed, somewhat  after  the  manner  of  the  patrists,  before  baptizing,  to  pray 
God  to  "sanctify  this  water  to  the  mystical  washing  away  of  sin." 
Whether  Dr.  Dale  would  call  this  sanctified  water  "  divinely  impregnated  " 
and  "medicated,"  we  do  not  know;  but  it  is  evidently  something  more  than 
simple  water,  and  probably,  like  patristical  water,  has  a  vis,  or  "  power  to 
baptize."     Episcopalian   "bishops  and  other  clergy"  have  comphmented 


6,6  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

Dr.  Dale's  Inquiry;  but  have  they  really  come  to  believe  that  drinking 
their  "sanctified"  water  will  baptize  them?  Are  our  anti-immersionist 
friends,  generally,  coming  to  reach  such  a  point  as  this  ?  We  would  like  to 
hear  from  the  authors  of  the  Complimentary  Testimonials  again  on  this 
matter.  And  again:  does  any  one  wonder,  after  this,  why  Dr.  Dale  is  so 
much  opposed  to  regarding  any  baptisms  as  "figurative,"  except  literal 
ones  ?] 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  67 


CHAPTER  XII. 

ALLEGED  CHANGE  OF  MEANING  IN  BAPTO. 

BEFORE  Carson's  time,  6apto  and  haptizo  were,  we  believe, 
generall}^  treated  as  one  word.  They  are,  indeed,  related  to 
each  other  even  as  "parent  and  child,"  bearing  a  strong  famil}' 
resemblance,  yet  marked  by  distinguishable  features.  The  most 
noticeable  difference  is  this,  that  hapto,  to  dip,  has  a  secondary 
meaning,  "to  dj'e  "  (b}^  dipping)  ;  and  though  it  has,  in  one  instance 
at  least,  a  religious  usage,  as  in  the  case  of  the  pig-defiled  Egyp- 
tian, it  is  3'et  never  applied  to  the  rite  of  Christian  baptism.  Bap- 
tizo,  on  the  other  hand,  has  never  acquired  this,  nor,  indeed,  an}' 
.other  distinctive  secondary'  meaning';  though  we  notice  that  it  is 
once  employed  (by  Basil,  C.  79)  in  connection  with  d^-eing.  Dale, 
without  warrant,  belittles  bapto  down  to  the  dimensions  of  our 
"feeble"  (or  enfeebled)  dip,  making  it  denote  "a  trivial  act  of 
superficial  entrance  and  evanescent  continuance,"  and  thus  re- 
moves bajoto  in  meaning  ' '  wide  as  the  poles  asunder  ' '  from  bap- 
tizo.  Just  imagine  the  disgust  with  which  our  author  must  regard 
the  teaching  of  the  old  Dutch  catechism,  which,  when  speaking  of 
baptism,  asks,  "Wat  is  den  Doop?"  Were  it  worthwhile,  we 
could  fully  show  that  the  two  are  often  used  as  exact  equivalents  ; 
that  the  hand  is  dipped  in  a  fluid,  the  sword  is  plunged  into  the 
body  ;  that  the  sun  sinks  in  the  western  ocean  with  bapto  exactly  as 
it  does  with  baptizo;'  and  the  "unlimited  continuance  "  in  either 
case  is  just  as  "  indefinite  "  and  just  as  brief.  According  to 
LiddcU  and  Scott,  a  ship,  even,  will  sink  with  bapto  as  well  as  with 
the  heavier  baptizo  (see  more  full}'  in  Professor  Kendrick's 
article,  "Baptist  Quarterly,"  18G9,  pp.  141-149).  But,  though 
Dr.  Dale  speaks  thus  sligiitingly  of  bapto,  it  has  done  him  and 
Bome  others  immense  service  in  the  way  of  furnishing  them  an 


68  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

iaiaginary  secondar}^  signification  to  bcqotizo,  which,  in  its  turn,  has 
supplanted  the  primary.  The  helping  process  is  this  :  Bapto,  by 
long  usage,  has  entirel}'  (?)  changed  its  meaning.  It  first  meant 
"  to  dip,"  then  "  to  d^^e  b}-  dipping,"  and  finally  "  to  dye  ivitJiout 
dipping."  How  easy  and  natural  now  to  imagine  a  hke  change  to 
have  taken  place  in  baptizo!  Its  primary  meaning,  as  is  now 
generall}'  conceded,  is  immersion,  "  intusposition,  general^,  in 
some  fluid  element."  "Intusposition  within  a  closely  invested 
medium  is  essential  to  its  primary-  use."  "  Baptizo  demands  intus- 
position." President  Beecher  is  also  quite  as  explicit  in  regard 
to  its  ' '  original  and  primitive  meaning  ' '  as  being  immersion  ;  and 
he  also  admits,  what  we  believe  Dale  has  never  fuU}^  and  manfully 
done,  that  its  original  meaning,  its  secular  sense  (of  immersion), 
was  never  lost.  But,  in  the  histor}'  of  the  word,  both  discover, 
principall}-  by  the  aid  of  hapjto^  a  change  of  meaning.  With 
Beecher,  as  we  have  seen,  its  primitive  and  secular  sense  is  to 
immerse.  "I  have  never  seen  the  least  evidence  that  baptizo 
means  to  sprinkle  or  pour."  But  it  has  also  acquired  a  religious 
sense,  and  in  this  usage  it  means  simpl}'  to  purif}'  without  regard 
to  mode.  Dale  begins  the  history  of  baptizo  with  "intusposition 
without  influence,"  and  ends  it  with  "  influence  without  intusposi- 
tion." In  other  words,  baptizo  first  meant  to  intuspose,  to  merse, 
to  drown  ;  which  meanings  have  been  wholly  supplanted  by  its 
secondary  signification,  to  influence  controllingly .  Rev.  Edward 
Bickersteth,  sen.,  states  the  change  thus:  '•^  Bapto  acquires  the 
secondary  sense  of  dyeing :  baptizo  acquires  the  secondary  sense 
of  baptizing.  Bapto,  from  d3'eing  by  dipping,  comes  to  denote 
dj'eing  in  an}^  manner:  baptizo,  from  baptizing  hj  dipping,  comes 
to  denote  baptizing  in  an}'  manner.  What  analogy  can  be  more 
perfect?  " 

But  it  is  time  for  us  to  inquire,  What  has  happened  to  bapto? 
Did  it  ever  entirety  lose  its  primar}'  meaning  ?  Even  Carson  —  in 
rather  an  un-Carsonian  way,  as  it  seems  to  me,  and  apparently 
against  his  own  assertions  elsewhere  —  acknowledges  that  "  a  word 
may  come  to  enlarge  its  .meaning  so  as  to  lose  sight  of  its  origin," 
and  that  "  a  word  may  receive  a  secondar}'  signification  totally 
excluding  the  idea  that  is  essential  to  the  priniar}^"  (pp.  45,  251). 
And  he  seems  to  imply  that  baj)to  is  one  of  these  words.  Yet  tliis 
is  what  he  saj's  (on  p.  54)  in  regard  to  the  "  double  meaning" 


■       STUDIES  OIT  BAPTISM.  69 

ofbapto:  "Agreeablj'  to  the  above  view  of  the  connection  between 
the  secondary  meaning  of  this  word  and  the  primar}',  we  have  a 
great  number  of  the  branches  which  have  the  same  double  import 
from  the  same  connection,  —  bamma,  sauce  into  which  food  is 
clipped^  and  a  dye  into  which  things  are  to  be  dipped ;  bcqohe,  dip- 
piing^  and  dj'eing- stuff,  or  the  tincture  received  from  dyeing  ;  bcqjhi- 
Jcos,  both  dipping  and  dyeing ;  and  bapJiiJce,  the  d^'er's  art ;  bapjtos, 
to  be  dipped  and  to  be  dyed,  &c.  In  all  these  there  is  no  other 
common  idea  but  mode :  this  is  the  link  that  connects  these  two 
things  that  are  altogether  different.  If  the  same  word  has  the 
same  double  meaning  in  so  man}^  of  its  branches,  there  mitst  surely 
be  at  the  bottom  some  natural  relation  betiveen  these  meani7igs." 
Dr.  Campbell,  "  the  philosophical  linguist,"  remarks  (in  his  "  Phi- 
losophy of  Ehetoric") ,  that,  "in  some  words  the  metaphorical  sense 
has  jostled  out  the  original  sense  altogether  ; ' '  and  that  ' '  it  hap- 
pens with  languages  as  with  countries,  —  strangers,  received  at  first 
through  charity,  often,  in  time,  grow  strong  enough  to  dispossess 
the  natives."  But  this  is  stating  the  matter  rather  strongly. 
"  Secondar}-  meanings  shoot  forth  out  of  the  primary  "  by  natural 
growth :  they  are  kindred  in  meaning  to  the  primary,  and  are  not 
"  strangers."  There  is  alwaj's  a  connecting  link  between  them,  a 
natural  '■^  chain  of  significations,"  the  exhibition  of  which  is  the 
life,  soul,  and  beaut}"  of  true  lexicography.  "Science,"  says 
Carson,  "in  classing  the  meanings  of  a  word,  will  always  ascer- 
tain the  primary  meaning,  if  it  is  possible,  showing  how  every 
secondary  meaning  flows  from  this  ;  and,  amidst  much  diversity,  it 
will  generally  discover  a  famih' likeness."  Again:  it  is,  indeed, 
possible  that  a  word  may  become,  in  a  measure,  "weaned  from 
its  infant  and  original  sense."  But  we  also  believe  that  a  total 
loss  from  any  word  of  its  radiccd  and  essenticd  meaning,  effected 
not  by  accident  or  freak,  but  in  the  natural  way  of  language -devel- 
opment, is  one  of  the  rarest  things  in  the  luorld.  As  instances  of 
obsolete  meanings.  Dr.  Campbell  adduces  the  words  to  "  train," 
"curb,"  "  edif}',"  and  "enhance,"  the  primitive  significations 
whereof  were,  to  "cbaw,"  "bend,"  "build,"  and  "lift."  And 
had  he  been  of  Dale's  opinion,  that,  "  if  ever  a  word  lost  its  essen- 
tial^ meaning,  baptizo  is  that  word,"  he  would  doubtless  have  men- 
tioned, instar  omnium,  the  word  "  baptize  ;  "  but,  iustead  of  doing 
this,  the  erudite  Pi'esbyterian  divine  gave  the  world  a  Baptist  ver- 


70  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

sion  of  the  four  Gospels,  wherein  he  restored  to  "baptism"  its 
original  meaning  of  "immersion."  But,  in  the  four  examples 
adduced  bj-  Dr.  Campbell,  any  one  can  see,  not  only  that  there  is 
no  break  in  the  "  chain  of  significations,"  but  that  the  essence  of 
the  primar}"  does  live  and  have  a  being  in  the  secondary. 

We  now  notice  a  few  examples  which  are  confident^  adduced 
as  showing  that  bapto  has  wholly  lost  its  primary  signification  of 
"dipping."  In  the  Septuagint  version  of  Dan.  iv.  30  (our  ver- 
sion, iv.  33),  it  IS  said  that  Nebuchadnezzar's  "  body  was  dipped 
from  the  dew  of  heaven,"  or,  as  in  our  version,  "  was  wet  with 
the  dew  of  heaven."  Here  is  no  actual  "  dijoping  ;  "  yet  Mr.  Car-' 
son,  who  gives  up  "  the  mode  "  elsewhere,  sees  even  here  a  "  figu- 
rative dipping."  Akin  to  this  is  the  well-known  line  from  Milton's 
"  Comus"  (lines  802,  803),— 

"  A  cold  shuddering  dew 
Dips  me  all  o'er." 

Has  "dip"  here  lost  all  its  original  meaning,  mode  and  essence 
both?  We  trow  not.  The  last  edition  of  Webster  thus  defines  it : 
"To  wet,  AS  IF  by  immersing  in  ajluid."  Would  it  be  philosophic 
or  truthful  to  define  it  thus  :  "To  wet  vtithout  immersion  or  dip- 
ping"? We  think  not.  Therefore  in  this  case  we  retain  the 
essence,  while  we  care  little  about  "  the  mode."  Another  example 
is  found  in  Aristotle:  "When  it"  (the  berry)  "is  pressed,  it 
dips"  (dyes)  "and  colors  the  hand,"  Here  Carson  surrenders 
the  idea  of  mode,  and  says,  "  Surely  there  is  no  reference  to 
dipping  here  :  the  hand  is  dj'ed  by  ^ressm^/  the  thing  that  dyes." 
But,  if  we  adopt  the  Websterian  principle  of  defining,  would  not 
the  full  meaning  be,  that  the  hand  is  dj'ed  as  if  it  were  dipped,  or 
so  as  to  look  dipped?  If  so,  the  essence  of  the  dipping  process  is 
not  wholly  lost  from  the  word,  much  less  has  the  word  in  its  pri- 
mar}^  sense  become  obsolete.  In  fact,  Dale  quotes  another  sen- 
tence from  the  same  Aristotle,  where  the  word  is  used  in  its  literal 
sense.  Aristophanes  and  lamblichus  also  use  the  word  in  both 
senses,  as  may  be  seen  in  Dale's  Examples.  Still  another  example 
occurs  in  the  works  of  Hippocrates  (a  medical  writer,  born  460 
B.C.),  who  emplo3'S  this  word  scores  of  times  in  its  primary 
signification  :  "  When  it  drops  upon  the  garments,  they  are  dyed  " 
(dipped).     Carson  would  give  up  "mode"  here  also;  though  we 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  71 

see  not  why  there  is  not  as  much  of  a  "  figurative  clipping  "  in  the 
'■'•dropping"  of  coloring-matter  as  there  is  in  the  '■'■falling"  of 
the  dew.  It  is  probably  true  that  regard  is  chiefly  had,  not  to  act, 
but  to  effect,  in  both  these  instances,  while  at  the  same  time  the 
idea  of  intusposition  is  not  excluded.  In  this  case  of  hapto-(b)'e\\\g, 
we  must,  at  least,  suppose  that  the  garments,  after  their  (perhaps 
jjlentiful)  sprinkling,  looked  as  if  the}'  had  been  dipped.^ 

Carson,  we  ma}^  here  remark,  was,  perhaps,  unfortunate  in  the 
use  of  the  word  "mode;"  as  when  he  says  of  baptizo  that  "it 
alwaj's  signifies  'to  dip,'  never  expressing  an}' thing  but  mode." 

1  "Drops  "sometimes  will  do  great  things;  Avill  even,  according  to  Shak- 
speare,  effect  a  drowning  in  figure:  "  These  foolish  drops  do  somewhat .c7roty)i 
my  manly  spirits."  He  also  speaks  of  "  drowning  the  stage  with  tears." 
The  poet  Langhorne  speaks  of  a  "child  of  misery  baptized  in  tears."  And 
the  Psalmist  says,  "  Every  night  make  I  my  bed  to  swim;  with  tears  make  I 
my  couch  to  flow." 

In  reference  to  HiiDpocrates'  usage  as  regards  hapto,  Carson,  after  addu- 
cing over  ^/(?/  examples  of  bapto-dipping  from  that  writer,  thus  (on  p.  43) 
remarks:  "  Thus  we  have  seen  in  what  a  vast  multitude  of  examples  Hip- 
pocrates uses  this  word  to  signify  '  to  dip,'  and  that  quite  irrespectively  of 
the  nature  of  the  fluid.  Indeed,  he  not  only  does  it  so  frequently  in  this 
signification,  but  he  uses  it  in  no  other  signification  except  once  in  the 
sense  of  '  to  dye ; '  and  it  is  the  only  word  which  he  employs  to  denote  the 
mode  in  question.  .  .  .  Besides,  we  have  in  this  writer  tlie  words  which  sig- 
nify every  application  of  water  and  other  fluids.  .  .  .  He  uses  raino,  aioneo, 
&c.,  for  '  sprinkle; '  and,  for  '  pour,'  he  uses  cheo  with  its  compounds,  which 
occurs  times  innumerable.  For  'wet,'  'moisten,'  'soak,'  'steep,' he  uses 
deuo,  breclio,  teggo,  &c.,  the  first  of  which  meets  us  in  almost  every  page; 
the  second  is  often  used ;  and  of  the  last  there  are  several  examples.  For 
bathing  the  whole  body,  he  constantly  uses  louo  ;  and  he  makes  a  very  free 
use  of  the  bath,  both  hot  and  cold.  For  washing  a  part  of  the  body,  he  uses 
nipto  with  its  compounds,  and  occasionally  the  compoiuids  of  liliino.  If  it 
is  possible  to  settle  the  meaning  of  a  common  word,  surely  this  is  sufficient 
to  fix  tlie  meaning  of  bapto  beyond  all  reasonable  controversy.  In  the  works 
of  the  father  of  medicine,  in  whicli  he  has  occasion  to  treat  of  eveiy  mode 
of  the  application  of  liquids,  and  which  consist  of  no  less  than  five  hundred 
and  forty-three  closely-i^rinted  folio  pages,  all  the  words  of  mode  are  applied, 
.  and  bapto  invariably  is  used  when  he  designates  immersion."  It  may  seem 
strange  that  Hippocrates  did  not  oftener  use  the  word  baptizo,  as  only  four 
examples  (C.  30,  48,  TO)  have  been  attributed  to  him,  and  these,  it  seems, 
"  erroneously."  Had  he  no  occasion  to  express  the  idea  of  tliorough  change 
of  condition  and  of  controlling  influence  ?  Dr.  Dale,  as  a  physician  or  as  a 
medical  writer,  would  have  sought  to  effect  or  express  this  change  and  influ- 
ence a  thousand  times. 


72  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

What  he  meant  was,  probabty,  that  eveiy  case  of  baptism  was  an 
actual  down-putting  of  some  object  into  the  water,  or  else  was 
conceived  of  and  pictured  as  such ;  while  yet  the  manner  (mode, 
loe  might  say)  of  the  intusposition  might  be  quite  various.-^  But 
in  reference  to  hapto  he  would  probably  maintain  that  it  sometimes 
indicates  result  without  reference  to  particular  act,  as  in  the  two 
last  examples.  Yet,  even  in  these  instances,  the  idea  of  intusposi- 
tion certainly  is  not  necessarily  excluded.  In  Nebuchadnezzar's 
dew-bath  there  is  the  idea  of  intusposition,  though  without  direct 
reference  to  the  literal  act  of  dipping.  And  suppose  these  "  gar- 
ments ' '  were  covered  all  over  b}'  the  coloring-matter  dropping  on 

1  Aristotle  (C.  4)  speaks  of  a  certain  seacoast  as  being  baptized  by  an  over- 
flowing tide.  Dr.  Gale  rather  regards  baptizo  in  tbis  instance  as  expressing, 
not  so  mucb  tbe  action  of  putting  ujider  water,  as  that  tbe  object  is  in  that 
state.  Dr.  Carson  dissents  from  this  xie^,  and  sees  even  here  a  figurative 
dipping.  "  Over  this  slight  and  perfectly  legitimate  diversity  of  view,"  says 
Professor  Kendrick  in  the  BaiDtist  Quarterly,  "Mr.  Dale  makes  himself 
merry  through  eight  pages  of  as  dreary  and  barren  criticism  as  the  tide- 
washed  coast  that  has  created  the  discussion.  He  does  not  seem  to  have 
the  faintest  idea  of  the  flexibility  and  subtlety  of  thought,  and  of  language 
as  its  exj)onent,  nor  of  the  varying  aspects  under  which  the  same  thought 
may  present  itself  to  the  imagination.  To  the  sailor,  now  the  boat  recedes 
from  the  shore,  and  now  the  shore  recedes  from  the  boat ;  to  the  railway 
traveller,  now  the  train  flies  by  the  landscape,  and  now  the  landscape  flies 
by  the  train.  As  the  rising  floods  beleaguer  a  mountain,  now  the  floods 
seem  to  be  -whelming  the  mountain,  now  the  mountain  seems  to  be  sinldng 
into  the  floods.  In  all  these  cases,  now  one  object  is  conceived  as  stationary, 
and  now  the  other.  Either  form  of  conception  is  equally  true  to  the  imagi- 
nation, and  therefore  equally  legitimate  in  expression,  though  not  equally 
true  to  the  fact.  To  the  intense  conception  of  the  poet,  the  '  coward  lips 
do  from  their  color  fly,'  instead  of  waiting  for  the  color  to  fly  more  prosai- 
cally from  them.  In  the  case  before  us  it  is  nearly  equally  natural  to  con- 
ceive of  the  water  rising,  and  whelming  the  shore,  or  the  shore  dipping  and 
sinldng  into  the  water.  The  former  is  more  literally  exact;  the  latter  more 
figurative,  and  yet  by  no  means  violently  so:  and  a  difference  like  this  of 
Drs.  Gale  and  Carson  reflects  not  the  slightest  discredit  on  the  scholarship  or 
good  judgment  of  either."  Were  Dr.  Carson  now  living,  he  would,  notwith- 
standing all  that  Dr.  Dale  has  written,  probably  afiirm  of  the  seacoast  bap- 
tism, "This  is  mode,  and  nothing  but  mode;  it  is  dipping,  and  nothing 
but  dipping;  immersion,  and  nothing  but  immersion;"  tlms  adhering  to 
"mode,"  and,  what  is  worse,  confounding  still  immersion  with  a  dipping. 
We  are  glad  that  Dr.  Carson  is  not  alive ;  for  we  almost  tremble  in  view  of 
what  he  miyht  say  in  review  of  the  Inquiry,  &c.,  made  by  his  friend  Dr. 
Dale. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  73 

them,  and  that  thus  they  appeared  as  if  dipped  in  a  d3'e,  can  we 
not  find  the  idea  of  intusposition  here  also  ?  We  may,  then,  eon- 
cede  that  the  word  for  dip,  being  so  constantly  used  in  and  for 
dyeing,  was  very  rarely  emploj'ed  for  dyeing  where  there  was  no 
actual  dipping,  but  where  the  effect  produced  was  like  that  of  dip- 
ping. But  to  return  to  "mode."  Carson  evidently' used  this 
word  to  express  specific  act,  while  we  commonly  use  it  to  denote 
the  manner  of  an  act.  Thus  baptism,  or  immersion  in  water, 
may  have  many  modes  ;  but  the  modes  of  bapting  or  of  baptiz- 
ing, provided  there  be  a  proper  intusposition  "  in  fact  or  figure," 
are  with  us  of  comparative^  little  account. 

A  3'et  more  decisive  example,  it  is  thought,  is  found  in  Homer's 
extravagantly  burlesque  description  of ' '  The  Battle  of  the  Frogs  and 
Mice,"  in  which  we  are  told,  that  on  the  death  of  one  of  the  com- 
batants, the  frog  Crambophagus,  or  cabbage-eater,  "  the  lake  was 
dipped  in  "  (d^^ed  with)  "  his  blood."  As  Carson  saw  a  figurative 
immersion  in  Nebuchadnezzar's  heavy  dew-bath,  so  Dr.  John  Gale 
sees  in  tMs  case  a  h3'perbolical  figurative  lake-dipping.  Carson- 
saj^s,  in  opposition  to  Gale's  view,  "What  a  monstrous  paradox: 
in  rhetoric  is  the  figuring  of  the  dipping  of  a  lake  in  the  blood  of 
a  mouse!  "^  This  is  true,  in  part;  but  perhaps  we  are  not  tO' 
expect  a  delicate  aptness  of  figure,  in  all  cases,  in  this  piece  of 
hj^perbolical  burlesque.  When  Cowley  says,  "  Droioned  in  his  own 
blood  Goliath  lay,"  we  are  not  expected  to  estimate  the  amount 
of  blood  in  his  veins  to  see  whether  a  literal  dipping  was  possible. 
Perhaps  Homer  himself,  or  whoever  wrote  the  piece,  would  not 
guarantee  a  siifficiencj^  of  blood  in  a  frog  for  the  lake-dipping,  and 
might  not  resent  the  ' '  soft  impeachment "  of  a  slight  impropriety 
in  the  figm-e.  I  suppose,  however,  all  he  meant  to  impl}'  was,  that 
the  lake  looked  crimsoned,  as  any  thing  would  when  dipped  in 
blood.     Confirmatory  of  this  is  the  following,  from  the  English 


1  We  wonder  that  so  many  Pedobaptist  authors  (Cooke  and  Towne, 
Wolff,  Stearns,  and  others)  have  followed  Carson  in  metamori^hosing  the 
frog  into  a  mouse.  At  least  they  have  not  noticed  it  as  a  mistake,  whether 
they  recognized  it  or  not.  Probably  they  had  a  purpose  in  this.  A  good- 
sized  frog  like  Crambophagus  doubtless  had  more  blood  in  him  than  a 
mouse,  and  toe  need  all  the  blood  we  can  get  for  the  lake-dipping.  No  one 
who  has  read  Dr.  Dale  could  mistake  the  genus  of  the  animal  slain ;  for  he 
reiterates,  "  Gale's  lake-dipping  in  the  blood  of  a  frog  "  ad  —  / 


74  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

"Monthl}^  Review:"  "In  the  Septuagint  it  is  said  that  Nebu- 
chadnezzar was  baptized  "  (haptecl.,  rather,  and  so  of  the  lake,  be- 
low) "with  the  dew  of  heaven  ;  and  in  a  po^m  attributed  to  Homer, 
called  '  The  Battle  of  the  Frogs  and  Mice,'  it  is  said  that  a  certain 
lake  was  baptized  with  the  blood  of  a  wounded  combatant.  A 
question  has  arisen,  in  what  sense  the  word  '  baptize  '  can  be  used 
in  this  passage.  Doth  it  signify  immersion,  pro29er?_?/  so  called? 
Certainl}^  not ;  neither  can  it  signify  a  partial  sprinkling.  A  body 
wholly  surrounded  with  a  mist,  wholly  made  humid  with  dew,  or 
a  piece  of  water  so  tinged  with  and  discolored  by  blood,  that  if  it 
had  been  a  solid  bddy,  and  dipped  into  it,  it  could  not  have  received 
a  more  sanguine  appearance,  is  a  very  different  thing  from  that 
partial  application  which  in  modern  times  is  supposed  sufficient  to 
constitute  full  and  explicit  baptism.  The  accommodation  of  the 
word  '  baptism '  (bapting)  to  the  instances  we  have  referred  to  is 
not  unnatural,  though  highly  metaphorical,  and  may  be  resolved 
into  a  trope,  or  figure  of  speech,  in  which,  though  the  primary  idea 
is  maintained,  yet  the  mode  of  expression  is  altered,  and  the  word 
itself  is  to  be  understood  rather  allusivety  than  really,  rather  rela- 
tively than  absolutel3^  If  a  bod}'  had  been  baptized,  or  immersed, 
it  could  not  have  been  more  wet  than  Nebuchadnezzar's  :  if  a  lake 
had  been  dipped  in  blood,  it  could  not  have  put  on  a  more  blood}' 
appearance."  i 

But  the  "  decisive  "  proof  of  a  "complete"  and  "radical" 
change  of  meaning  in  hapto  is  found  in  the  entu-e  change  in  its 
syntax.  "Where  once  the  Greek  writers  spoke  of  dipping  any 
thing  into  coloring-matter,  they  came  at  length  to  speak  of  dipping 
a  color  or  a  dye.  We  give  two  or  three  examples  as  quoted  b}' 
Stuart  and  Dale  :  "  Lest  I  dip  3'ou  "  (dj^e  you)  "  a  Sardinian  dye  " 
(Aristoi^hanes) .  So  Plato  says,  "Whether  one  dip"  (dye)  "  other 
colors,  or  whether  these."  Let  these  examples  stand  for  a  mo- 
ment while  we  look  at  our  own  native  "  dip."  It  so  happens  that 
both  Milton  and  Cowper,  and,  we  presume,  other  writers,  have  em- 
ployed the  same  syntactical  construction  with  our  "  dip,"  meaning 
to  dj-e,  which  the  Grecians  did  with  their  baj^to,  and  which  our 
friends  adduce  as  pro^'ing  an  entire  change  of  meaning.  Both  the 
poe4;s  referred  to  have  spoken  of  "  colors  dipped  in  heaven."  The 
question  now  is,  Does  this  form  of  syntax  prove  that  our  "  dip," 
primary  and  proper,  has  completely  changed  and  lost  its  ' '  radi- 
cal ' '  meaning  ? 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  75 

Dr.  Dale  would  probably  answer,  "Yes,"  and,  to  prove  the 
aflSrmative,  would  ask  us,  in  his  peculiar  dialect,  "What!  are  we 
to  imagine  dj-e-tubs  in  heaven,  and  the  celestials  as  emploj-ing 
themselves  in  dipping  rainbows  and  angels'  wings  therein?  "  We 
said  "probabl}',"  because  Dale,  in  obedience  to  a  supposed  demand 
of  his  theor}',  almost  everjTvhere,  when  possible,  seeks  to  break 
"  the  chain  "  which  binds  together  the  different  meanings  of  words. 
and  thus  to  give  the  secondary'  senses  an  independent  status  of 
their  own,  isolating  them  from  all  connection  with,  and  reference 
to,  the  primar}'  significations,  —  a  purpose  and  business  which  we 
deem  very  unscholarlUvC  and  profitless.  In  a  declaration  like  this 
of  Achilles  Tatius,  "A  man  baptized  in"  (or  whehned  b}-)  "anger 
sinks  "  (C.  113),  Dr.  Dale  will  see  "  no  mersion  either  in  fact  or 
figure."  Tertullian,  referring  to  the  axe  which  was  lost  in  the 
Jordan,  makes  it  represent  "the  hardness  of  this  age  mersed  in 
the  depth  of  error,"  to  be  raised  up  and  restored  only  by  "  the 
wood  of  Christ."  Here,  vv^here  everj'body  else  would  recognize  a 
trope,  or  "figure,"  Dr.  Dale  avers,  "on  his  own  responsibilit}'," 
that  there  is  "  no  mersion  in  error  possible,  even  in  imagination." 
Does  he  simply  mean,  that-  in  this  case,  there  is  no  literal,  phj'sical 
immersion?  This,  methinks,  is  too  much  a  man  of  straw  for  him 
to  cannonade  so  long  and  fierce!}'.  Cut,  to  sustain  his  averment, 
he  goes  on,  in  accordance  with  "  the  Baptist  theory',"  to  convert 
error  into  ' '  a  pool  of  water  ' '  (to  make  every  thing  ' '  run  smooth- 
ly ")  ;  and  he  finds  a  subject  in  Mr.  "  Hardness  of  the  Age,"  and 
finally  gets  Mistress  "  Sin  "  to  be  the  dipper,  and  occupies  a  page 
or  two  in  coarse  and  ridiculous  description  of  the  whole  thing ; 
which,  if  it  betrayed  his  usual  wit,  we  would  copy  in  full,  as  an 
illustration  of  the  waj'  he  rides  a  ' '  figure  ' '  into  the  earth  aud  to 
death,  and  riots  in  the  "incongruities"  of  a  metaphor.^  ^Ylien 
Dr.  Dale  sees,   as  he  occasionally  will,   a  "figure   grounded   in 

1  "Every  metaphor,"  Dr.  Dale  says,  "presents  to  us  terms  between 
wMcli  there  are  many  inconrjruities,  and  one,  at  least,  point  of  resemblance. 
The  incongruities  are  to  he  thrown  aside,  as  nothing  to  tlie  purpose,"  etc. 
If  any  one  will  turn  to  p.  263,  seq.,  of  Dale's  Judaic  Baptism,  he  will  see  a 
fair  specimen  of  his  usual  stjie  and  method  of  cavilling  at  these  "incon- 
gruities," and  of  his  revelling  and  rioting  in  them;  which  said  process,  we 
can  truthfully  say,  forms  no  inconsiderable  i^art  of  the  sura  and  substance 
of  his  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  four  (1,804)  octavo  pages  of  Classic, 
Judaic,  Johannic,  Chiistic,  and  Patristic  Baptism. 


76  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

mersion,"  he  does  not  metamorphose  the  "  verlDal  element"  into 
"  a  pool  of  water  "  to  effect  an  intusposition  ;  but,  when  a  "  Bap- 
tist writer  "  sees  in  some  passage  a  like  verbal  figure,  immediately 
there  is  conjured  up  before  us  either  a  water-pool  or  a  "  d3'e-tub," 
wherewith  to  effect,  for  his  amusement,  a  figurative  "  dipping." 

But  to  revert  again  to  our  "  dip,"  and  to  the  quer\'  whether  any 
essential  element  of  its  primary'  signification  has  been  "  totally 
excluded  "  and  lost.  To  this  we  answer.  Nay.  Its  literal  and 
primarj^  meaning  and  its  secondar}^  and  consequential  significations 
co-exist ;  and  we  need  the  existence  and  power  of  the  former  to 
preside  over  and  regulate  the  latter,  and,  in  some  instances,  to  make 
them  even  intelligible.  Who  could  understand  the  now  obsolete 
meaning  of  "dip"  {to  mortgage).,  as  used  in  Dr^'den's  "never 
dip  thy  lands,"  unless  something  was  known  about  its  primary  im- 
port of  dipping  in  and  talung  out ;  to  wit,  a  part  of  one's  propert}'? 
But,  so  far  as  a  change  in  grammatical  construction  is  concerned, 
there  is  just  as  much  reason  for  inferring  a  change  in  the  meaning 
of  ' '  dip  ' '  as  in  the  meaning  of  hapto ;  and  there  is  no  more 
reason  for  supposing  a  change  in  hapto  than  there  is  for  supposing 
a  change  in  "  dip."  That  the  examples  of  our  "  color-dippings  " 
are  taken  from  the  poets  does  not  affect  a.nj  essential  point  of  this 
argument,  the  grammatical  construction  of  "  dip  "  being  regarded 
as  the  main  thing.  Though  our  friends  teU  us  that  we  cannot 
speak  of  dipping  a  color,  or  of  "  colors  dipped,"  in  the  primary' 
sense  of  that  word,  3'et  we  are  not  sure  that  this  phraseology 
excludes  all  idea  of  a  literal  dipping.  "  Colors  dipped  in  heaven  " 
may  simply  signify  colors  which  were  produced  by  dipping ;  and  to 
"  dip  the  pui'ple  "  may  mean  to  produce  the  purple  color  by  dip- 
ping. Is  any  reader  of  our  poets  who  speak  of  ' '  colors  dipped  in 
heaven"  made  conscious  of  the  fact  (?)  that  om"  "  dip  "  (through 
a  dyeing  process)  has  undergone  a  ' '  complete  ' '  and  ' '  radical ' ' 
change  in  its  meaning  ?     Or  when  we  hear  Comus  saj",  in  Milton, 

"A  cold,  sliuddering  dew 
Dips  me  all  o'er," 

are  we  rendered  sensible  that  "  dip,"  again,  "  has  laid  aside  a  dip- 
ping," and  has  acquired  another  specific  secondarj'  meaning,  — 
"  to  wet  without  dipping  "  ?  Methinks  that  one  with  "  no  soul  for 
poetry  "  would  hardly  say  or  beheve  this. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  77 

In  regard  to  the  primarj-  import  of  bapto  (to  dip) ,  we  aver  that 
it  never  became  obsolete,  and  was  never  lost  out  of  the  word  :  on 
the  contrary,  it  seems  to  have  become  intensified  and  strengthened 
by  age,  and  to  have  become  altogether  the  predominant  meaning. 
In  the  writings  of  Hippocrates,  who  once  speaks  of  a  bajyto-djeing 
(by  dropping) ,  there  are,  as  we  have  stated,  some  fifty  examples 
of  the  use  of  ba2:)to  in  its  literal  sense  of  dipping.  •  This  very  pre- 
ponderance of  the  primary  and  literal  sense  of  bapto  renders  it 
improbable  that  it  could  ever  acquire  and  maintain  a  secondary 
meaning,  unrelated  to,  and  independent  of,  the  primarj'.  Xay, 
judging  from  the  nature  and  philosophy  of  language  and  of  mind, 
we  should  deem  it  an  impossibility  that  a  word  of  such  specific 
import  as  bapto  (to  dip)  could  ever  come  to  have,  side  by  side, 
two  wholly  unrelated  and  independent  meanings.  We  know  of  no 
reason  or  necessitj^  for  supposing  such  a  phenomenon  to  have 
occurred  in  the  history  of  bapto.  Can  any  one  point  out  in  the 
histor}*  of  earth's  languages  such  an  instance  as  the  one  supposed  ? 

In  the  later  usage  of  the  word  bapjto  we  observe  the  same  pre- 
dominance of  literal  use.  The  word  occurs  eighteen  times  in  the 
Seventy  (exclusive  of  Ezek.  xxiii.  15,  where  the  reading  is  doubt- 
ful) ,  and  in  almost  every  instance  it  is  used  in  its  literal  sense  :  at 
least  it  never  has  the  special  signification  of  dyeing.^  In  the  New 
Testament  it  occurs  three  times  in  its  simple  form  (Luke  xvi.  24  ; 

^  The  following  are  the  passages  in  which  hapto  appears  in  the  Seventy  : 
Exod.  xii.  22;  Lev.  iv.  6,  17;  xi.  32;  xiv.  6,  16,  51;  Num.  xix.  18;  Deut. 
xxxiii.  24;  Josh.  ill.  15;  Kuth  ii.  14;  1  Kings  (1  Sam.)  xiv.  27;  4  Kings 
(2  Kings)  viii.  15;  Job  ix.  31;  Ps.  Ixvii.  24  (Ixviii.  23);  Dan.  iv.  .30  (33);  v. 
21.  With  the  exception  of  the  examples  in  Daniel  and  Psalms,  and  Lev.  xi. 
32,  it  is  used  as  the  translation  of  the  Hebrew  tabal  (to  dip).  According  to 
the  Vatican  Septuagint,  by  Leander  Van  Ess,  it  is  connected  with  the  prepo- 
sition eis  (into)  eight  times,  with  en  (in)  iive  times,  and  with  apo  (from) 
five  times.  Tabal,  however,  is  but  twice  followed  by  min  (from)  in  Hebrew 
(Lev.  iv.  17,  xiv.  16),  although  this  same  preposition  occurs  in  both  instances 
in  Daniel.  The  primary  idea  of  this  latter  phraseology  is  evidently  that  of 
dipping  in  and  taking /rom,  or  taking  a  p^art  of.  Gesenius  finds  in  min,  as 
here  used,  the  idea  of  instrument;  as,  for  example,  the  priest  shall  dip  (and 
moisten)  his  finger  wrt/t  the  oil.  In  Daniel  (from  the  dew  of  heaven  his 
body  shall  be  dipped)  the  preposition  seems  to  have  chief  reference  to 
source.  We  may  here  add,  that  tahal,  occurring  in  the  Old  Testament  six- 
teen times,  is  in  the  Seventy  fourteen  times  translated  by  hapto,  as  above 
stated,  once  by  baptizo  (2  Kings  v.  14),  and  once  by  moluno  (Gen.  xxxvii.  31). 


78  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

John  xiii.  26  ;  Eev.  xix.  13) ,  and  in  eacli  instance  is  rendered 
"  dip  "  in  our  version,  though  in  Rev.  xix.  it  may  be  either  dipped 
or  dyed..  Thus  it  is  apparent  that  a  dj^eing  bcqjto  has  never  dis- 
placed a  dipping  bapto,  but  that  the  latter  has  b}^  usage  come  to 
attain  rather  the  mastery  of  the  field.  We  grant,  of  course,  that 
the  word  bapto  is  used  oftener  in  connection  with  dyeing  than  is 
our  word  "  dip;  "  and  we  concede,  that,  in  a  few  cases,  it  was 
used  of  a  dj'eing  where  there  was  no  actual  dipping.  But  this  does 
not  prove  that  there  is  not  "  at  the  bottom  some  natural  relation 
between  these  meanings  ;  "  nor  does  it  prove  that  bapto  ever  means 
specificall}^  "to  d3'e  witJiout  dipping,"  which,  as  a  strict  definition, 
would  be  most  erroneous  and  misleading.  A  more  full  and  exact 
definition  (such  as  an  "  Illustrated  Webster  "  might  give)  would 
be  something  like  this  :  Bapto,  1.  To  dip  ;  2.  To  dye  b}^  dipping ; 
3.  To  dye  as  if  hj  dipping.  And  this  last  form  of  statement  would 
amply  cover  the  two  or  three  cases  of  "  dyeing  without  dipping." 
It  must  not  be  supposed,  however,  that,  because  bapto  (to  dip) 
is  so  often  used  in  the  sense  of  dyeing  (in  Avhich  respect  it  so 
greatty  resembles  the  Latin  tingo) ,  it  has  no  other  secondary  mean- 
ings or  ''  figurative  applications."  Dale  himself  gives  some  ten 
difi'erent  meanings,  many  of  which  are  fanciful  and  unwarranted. 
He  gives  five  examples  where  bapto  signifies  to  temper  iron  or  other 
metals  ;  to  wit,  by  dipping  them  in  water.  This  tempering  pro- 
cess can  be  witnessed  daily  and  hourly  in  every  blacksmith's  shop 
in  the  land  and  in  the  world.  We  see  in  the  German  language, 
for  example,  that  das  TaucJien  (the  dipping)  is  their  expression 
for  the  tempering  of  metals.  A  glance  at  the  verses  of  Virgil  will 
show  us  that  the  same  custom  prevailed  among  the  old  Romans. 
"  Some,"  he  sa^'s,  "  dip  the  sputtering  brass  [in]  the  trough,"  — 
"Alii  stridentia  tingunt  aera  lacu  "  (Georg.,  iv.  172).  So  in 
"  The  -ZEneid,"  xii.  91 :  "Ensem  .  .  .  Stygia  candentem  tinxerat 
unda,"  —  "And  plunged  the  sword,  when  glowing,  [in]  the 
Stj^gian  wave."  Indeed,  so  few  are  the  exceptions,  we  may  say 
that  dipping  is  the  universal  method  of  tempering  and  hardening 
metals ;  and  this  fact  alone  should  have  deterred  Dr.  Dale  from 
attempting  to  ^^  pour  on  water  "  when  he  would  quench  the  fiery 
glow  of  the  red-hot  mass  of  iron  which  was  "  baptized  [m]  water  " 
(C.  71).  We  remark,  further,  that  all  the  other  significations  of 
bapto  are  also  grounded  in  and  are  referable  to  its  primary 
meaninar. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  79 

But  supposing  that  hapto  had  changed,  and  even  lost  its  primaiy 
meaning :  what  has  that  to  do  toward  proving  a  like  change  of 
meaning  in  baptizo?  We  answer,  Just  nothing  at  all.  Carson, 
we  believe,  was  the  first  fully  to  establish  the  fact  of  a  secondary 
meaning  p)ecuKar  to  '•'■bapto;  namely,  that  of  dyeing.  In  opposition 
to  a  view  long  held,  and  then  generally  prevalent,  he  boldly  de- 
clared, when,  as  we  have  seen,  he  might  have  made  some  reserva- 
tion, that  bapto  (to  dye  by  dipping)  came  afterward  to  denote 
dj^eing,  without  reference  to  mode,  and  in  any  manner."  But  he 
flatly  denies  any  like  change  in  the  meaning  of  baptizo,  and  asks, 
' '  Where  is  the  proof  that  the  process  has  actually  taken  place  ? ' ' 
"  Give  me  the  same  proof  that  baptizo  in  the  New  Testament  has 
been  brought  to  designate  the  ordinance  of  Christ  without  reference 
to  mode  as  there  is  that  bapto  signifies  to  dj'e,  and  I  will  at  once 
warrant  the  change  by  my  philosophy.  The  gold  coin  called  a  sov- 
ereign is  now  worth  twenty  shillings.  I  admit  that  at  some  future 
time  it  ma}'  pass  for  fifteen  shilhngs,  or  that  it  ma^^  be  raised  to 
the  value  of  twenty-five  shillings.  Will  this  prove  at  an}'  specified 
time  that  either  of  these  things  has  actuall}*  taken  place  ?  "  (p.  250.) 

Even  if  Dr.  Dale  had  succeeded  in  establishing  a  "secondary 
meaning  of  controlling  influence"  as  belonging  to  bap>tizo,  this 
would  not  afiect  the  question  of  the  proper  mode  or  act  of  ritual 
baptism;  for  this,  according  to  its  "ordinary  literal  import," 
from  which  there  is  no  necessity  of  departing,  requires  a  "  definite 
act,"  a  hteral  intusposition  or  immersion  in  water  performed  by 
one  person  upon  another,  and  not  a  general  "  controlling  influence  " 
wrought  m}' steriously  in  some  one  of  ' '  ten  thousand ' '  different 
ways.  Dr.  Dale,  it  is  certain,  has  never  made  John  the  Baptist 
say  to  his  countr3'men,  "I  controllingly  influence  you  'with' 
water ;  "  nor  can  we  suppose  that  the  Baptist  was  sent  of  God  to 
controllingly  influence  men  either  in  or  with  water.  A  ritual 
baptism  in  or  with  water,  and  a  "baptism  of  controlling  influ- 
ence," haA'e  no  concern  together,  no  relation  to  each  other.  The 
question,  "What  is  the  proper  mode  or  act  of  the  baptismal  rite?" 
is  not  determined  or  afl'ected  by  the  question  whether  bajJtizo  has, 
or  has  not,  a  "  secondary  meaning  of  controlling  influence."  If 
the  newly- converted  disciple  is  seeking,  as  the  Ethiopian  eunuch 
sought,  for  loater-haptism,  he  need  not  stop  first  and  read  through 
the  four  octavo  volumes  of  Dale's  "Inquiry  into  the  Usage  of 


80  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

Baptizo ' '  to  ascertain  whether  this  word  has  not  a  ' '  secondary 
meaning  of  controlling  influence  ;  "  in  other  words,  whether  there 
be  not  a  "  baptism  of  influence  without  intusposition  "  in  water, 
or  without  anj^  use  of  water  whatever.  To  determine  the  proper 
usage  of  a  rite,  or  the  definite  meaning  of  the  word  which  desig- 
nates its  action,  we  are  not  to  look,  as  Beecher,  Dale,  and  others 
have  done,  to  the  supposed  symbolic  import,  the  design  or  effect 
of  such  rite.  We  may,  indeed,  wish  to  know  what  is  the  essence 
of  a  rite,  what  its  influence,  or  its  "  spiritual  efiect :  "  but  it  must 
ever  be  borne  in  mind  that  a  rite  enacted  by  positive  law  for 
man's  observance  supposes  sonje  "definite  act,"  as  "circum- 
cise," "sprinkle,"  "eat,"  "drink,"  &c.  ;  and  that  the  word 
which  designates  the  action  must  not  be  like  the  "  myriad- sided  " 
baptizo  of  Dr.  Dale,  nor  like  the  "baptism"  of  John  Horsey  of 
England,  —  "an  equivocal,  open,  general  term,"  determining  only 
this,  "  that  water  should  be  applied  to  the  subject  in  some  form  or 
other," — but  a  word  of  plain,  specific  import,  to  be  taken  in  its 
primary,  hteral,  usual  sense,  wherever  it  is  possible.  "  Circum- 
cise," "eat,"  "drink,"  &c.,  may  have,  or,  by  the  Dale  process, 
be  furnished  with,  secondar}^  meanings  and  resultant  "  influences  " 
and  "conditions  ;  "  but  with  these,  in  the  determining  of  the  proper 
action  of  the  rite,  we  have  nothing  to  do.  We  may  imagine 
"circumcise,"  for  example,  which  primarily  and  properly  means 
to  cut  around  (the  flesh),  — which  said  process,  of  course,  inflicts 
pain,  and  produces  a  painful  condition,  —  to  come  b}''  its  frequent 
use  to  denote  the  infliction  of  pain  generally,  in  other  words,  to 
exert  a  paintnl  influence  and  to  cause  a  painful  state  and  condition 
of  things,  without  regard  to  "modality"  of  action,  and  in 
"myriad"  (ten  thousand)  waj's.  But  all  true  Israelites,  if  in 
their  senses,  will,  in  observing  this  rite,  take  the  knife,  and  per- 
form the  literal  cutting  (though  it  may  be  in  diff'erent  modes) , 
irrespective  of  the  alleged  immodality  and  indefiniteness  of  action, 
and  painful  influences  and  conditions  in  general.  Cheerfully  will 
they  perform  this  un-ideal  operation,  even  though  it  be,  according 
to  Maimonides,  "  most  harsh  and  uneasy  "  (sometimes,  as  we  have 
read,  producing  a  fatal  inflammation) ,  and  even  though  some  pro- 
fane anti-circumcisionists  might  brand  it  as  "indelicate"  in  the 
highest  degree.  We  may  suppose  the  existence  of  a  veritable 
water-bapting,  or  dipping  rite,  in  the  Johannic  dispensation,  and 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  81 

that  John,  for  example,  who  was  surnamecl  "  the  Dipper,"  did, 
as  a  religious  rite,  dip  his  penitent  fellow-countrymen  (and  our 
blessed  Saviour)  "in  the  Jordan."  But  it  is  conceded  that  the 
hapto,  or  "  dip,"  of  the  dipping  rite,  experienced  in  preceding 
ages  "  a  radical  change  in  the  sj^ntax,"  proving  that  it  also  expe- 
rienced "  a  radical  change  in  meaning,"  and  that  it  acquired  a 
secondary  meaning,  — namely,  "  to  dye  without  dipping  ;  "  which 
meaning  had  whoU}^  supplanted  its  primary  one.  How,  now, 
shall  we  suppose  that  "  John  the  Dipper,"  who  "  was  sent  to  dip 
in  water,"  administered  his  ritual  dipping?  We  read,  not  only 
that  "there  went  out  to  him  all  the  country  of  Judsea,  and  all 
they  of  Jerusalem,  and  were  dipped  by  him  in  the  River  Jordan, 
confessing  their  sins,"  but  that  "Jesus  came  from  Nazareth  of 
Galilee,  and  was  dipped  by  John  into  the  Jordan."  Did  John 
perform  this  dipping  in  water  according  to  hapto  primary,  or 
hapto  secondary?  Could  any  man,  unless  a  born  imbecile,  or  one 
wholly  demented,  imagine  that  John  performed  on  the  Saviour, 
for  example,  some  general  dyeing  process  on  the  river's  bank, 
"without  iutusposition,"  or  "dipping"?  What  has  this  al- 
leged secondary  sense  to  do  with  a  proper  ritual  dipping  in 
water  ? 

In  reference  to  this  subject,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Gear  thus  remarks : 
"But  he  (Dr.  Dale)  evidentlj^  fails  to  consider,  that  even  if  he 
is  successful  in  estabhshing  a  secondary  meaning  for  baptizo,  in 
which  all  idea  of  iutusposition  is  excluded  from  its  import,  it  will 
avail  him  nothing  upon  the  subject  of  Christian  baptism,  for  the 
reason  that  correct  principles  of  interpretation  imperativelj^  de- 
mand that  the  ordinary  literal  import  of  "iutusposition,"  or 
"immersion,"  must  be  taken  as  the  true  import  of  the  word  in 
all  cases  where  its  context  does  not  require  and  indicate  that 
literal  "iutusposition"  or  "immersion"  must  be  excluded  from 
its  import ;  which  is  certainlj''  not  true  in  a.nj  case  where  the 
ordinance  of  baptism  is  spoken  of  in  the  Scriptures.  .  .  .  AU  of 
Dr.  Dale's  discussion  as  to  the  metaphorical  and  secondary  use 
of  words  is  wholly  immaterial  and  u-relevant  to  the  baptismal 
controvers}'.  It  is  just  as  true  of  a  secondarj'  as  it  is  of  a  figm-a- 
tive  meaning,  that  it  is  not  to  be  assumed  or  substituted  for  the 
ordinary  literal  import  of  a  word,  unless  the  context  so  impera- 
tively requires    and    indicates.      It   seems   whoUy   unnecessary, 


82  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

therefore,  to  take  special  notice  of  the  eri'ors  which  Dr.  Dale 
commits  in  the  manner  in  which  he  seeks  to  estabhsh  secondary 
meanings  for  the  words  which  he  discusses ;  3'et,  in  the  interest 
of  a  sound  philosojjhy,  I  must  protest  against  such  a  wholesale 
slaughter  of  figure  as  that  which  Dr.  Dale  attempts." 


STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM.  83 


CHAPTER    XIII. 


LOOSE  BEASONINGS. 


IN  spite  of  Ernesti's  "Principles  of  Interpretation,"  and  of 
Alexander  Carson's  logical  "  Canons,"  oui- Pedobaptist  friends 
wiU  sometimes  reason  loosely  on  the  subject  of  baptism.  This  is 
done  either  by  commuting  effect  for  cause,  mode  for  act,  inter- 
changeable words  in  a  proposition  for  exact  equivalents,  a  figura- 
tive sense  for  the  literal,  or  the  meaning,  design,  or  effect  of  a  rite 
for  the  meaning  of  a  word.  This  false  reasoning  generaU}'  as- 
sumes the  form  of  a  syllogism,  patterned  after  the  geometrical 
axiom  that  things  which  are  equal  to  the  same  things  are  equal  to 
each  other.  The  trouble  in  this  form  of  ratiocination  is,  that,  in 
the  propositions,  there  is  not  expressed  always  and  in  every  respect 
an  exact  equivalent.  Thus  it  will  not  do  to  argue,  that  because  an 
eel  is  a  fish,  and  a  perch  is  a  fish,  therefore  a  perch  is  an  eel ;  or 
that,  since  immersion  is  a  wetting,  and  sprinkhng  is  a  wetting, 
therefore  sprinkling  is  immersion ;  or  that,  since  baptize  with  the 
church  fathers  meant  to  illuminate,  to  regenerate,  &c.,  therefore 
regeneration  and  illumination  are  both  one,  and  each  is  equivalent 
to  baptism;  or,  finally,  that  since,  with  the  same  fathers,  baptize 
meant  to  seal,  and  one  mode  of  sealing  is  by  applying  a  wafer, 
therefore  the  apphcation  of  a  wafer  to  one's  person  is  one  mode 
of  baptism ! 

But  this,  3'ou  say,  is  ridiculous  stuff  to  write  and  print,  and  call 
it  reasoning.  True  enough ;  but,  "on  my  own  responsibilit}-,"  I 
will  aver  that  there  is  an  abundance  of  just  such  loose  reasoning 
as  this  in  many  a  learned  treatise  on  baptism,  and  not  a  little  such 
even  in  Dr.  Dale's  ponderous  octavos.  "When  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria speaks  of  a  man  "baptized  by  drunkenness  into  sleep," 
one  would  naturally  infer  that  this  condition  of  sleep  was  caused 


84  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

hj  his  baptism,  or  was  an  "  injluence  resulting  "  from  his  baptism. 
Does  Clement  then  say,  as  Dale  would  make  him,  that  ' '  this  thor- 
oughly changed  condition  of  a  profoundly'  sleeping  man  is  a  bap- 
tism ' '  ?  Because  the  effect  or  result  of  a  baptismal  intusposition 
is  frequentty  a  controlling  influence,  does  haptizein  (to  intuspose) 
therefore  mean  to  influence  controllingly  ?  Because  a  ship  bap- 
tized into  the  sea  commonly  sinks  to  the  bottom,  does  it  follow 
that  a  man  (or  a  cork)  baptized  into  the  sea  will  sink  to  the  bot- 
tom, or,  at  least,  will  never  rise  again?  Because  a  ship  sunk  by  its 
baptism  to  the  bottom  of  the  sea  will  remain  there  forever,  does 
it  follow  that  a  drunken  man  ' '  baptized  into  sleep  ' '  will  sleep  on 
forever?  Because  a  man  baptized  into  water  by  a  man-hating 
enemy,  lilce  Timon  (C.  28),  for  the  purpose  of  destropng  life, 
will  probably  "  never  see  the  light,"  does  it  follow  that  a  man 
intusposed  in  water  by  a  friendly  hand  (C.  156)  will  fare  as 
badl}'?  Because  a  putting-in  does  not  express  a  taking-out,  does 
it  follow  that  "  a  baptism  has  no  outcome  to  it,"  and  that  every 
baptismal  intusposition  is  unending?  Because  words  denoting 
receptive  element  are  b}^  the  preposition  eis  (into)  frequentl}' 
connected  in  regimen  with  baptizo,  can  we  safely  argue  that  "  re- 
pentance," for  example,  connected  b}^  the  same  preposition  with 
"  baptize  in  water,"  is  also  a  baptismal  element?  Because  a  bap- 
tismal intusposition  sometimes  "thoroughly  changes,"  or  "  con- 
trollingl}'  influences,"  the  intusposed  object,  does  it  logically 
follow  that  every  instance  of  such  change  and  influence,  even 
where  there  is  no  intusposition  either  "  in  fact  or  figure,"  is  caused 
by  a  baptism,  or  is  itself  a  baptism?  We  have  seen  no  facts 
adduced  as  yet  which  prove  that  such  a  stupendous  change  has 
occurred  in  the  meaning  of  this  word.  A  reference  to  a  baptism 
by  drunkenness  "  into  sleep,"  or  to  a  baptism  "  into  fornication," 
or  to  a  baptism  in  "wickedness,"  "  cares,"  and  "pleasure  "  (C. 
129,  154,  155),  or  to  a  baptism  in  (or  with)  "  seas  of  waihng," 
in  (or  with)  "anger"  and  "ignorance"  (C.  113,  125),  is  far 
enough  from  proving  a  baptism  of  "influence  without  intuspo- 
sition," either  "in  fact  or  figure."  Does  one  ask  if  there  is  in- 
tusposition of  anj"  sort  in  a  baptism  with  wine,  a  baptism  b}^  an 
opiate  draught,  or  b}"  sophistical  questions  (C.  163,  135),  or  in  a 
baptism  of  "tears"  and  of  "blood"?  If  the  reader  will  look 
at  Conant's  Exs.  95,  147,  he  will  find  that  a  baptism  with  wine. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  85 

"  by  drinking,"  is  compatible  with  the  idea  of  intusposition  "  be- 
neath the  waves,"  and  of  being  "plunged  in  the  cask."  An 
opiate  draught  flooding  the  senses  will  baptize  one  ' '  into  stu- 
por." A  person  ovei-whelmed,  or,  as  Liddell  and  Scott  have  it, 
"drowned,"  with  questions,  may  be  said  to  be  baptized  into 
"bewilderment."  The  patristic  baptism  of  tears  and  of  blood, 
while  not  allowing  a  physical  intusposition,  was  regarded  as  an 
overwhelming  flood  of  sorrow  and  suffering.  Thus  ever}'  "  baptism 
of  influence  "  is  or  should  be  properly  a  "  mersive  influence,"  and 
every  baptism  of  changed  condition  is  or  should  be  a  mersivehj 
changed  condition.  Dr.  Dale  says  that  "  one  bewildered  b}' 
questions,  or  drunk  with  wine,  is  equallj^a  baptized  man,"  because  * 
"  they  are  brought  into  new  conditions  of  being."  If  this  be  the 
true  reason,  then  every  birth  is  a  baptism  (for  surel}'  every  infant 
b}'  birth  is  ' '  brought  into  a  new  condition  of  being  " ) ,  and  thus 
we  shall  have  a  new  kind  of  infant-baptism  !  Where  shall  we  find 
an  end  of  these  "thorough  changes,"  and  "controlling  influ- 
ences," and  "  new  conditions  "  ? 

And  how  shall  we  characterize  that  reasoning  —  as  sound,  or 
"  loose,"  or  very  peculiar  —  which  asserts  that  "  nothing  can  more 
fully  develop  influence  than  the  infolding  of  an  object  within 
the  influential  agenc}',"  and  3'et  maintains  or  implies  that  even 
the  patristic  "  divinelj'-impregnated,"  "medicated,"  "  baptizing- 
water,"  if  recognized  as  a  receiving  element,  cannot  be  recognized 
as  "agency,"  or,  if  recognized  as  agency,  cannot  be  recognized 
as  recei\'ing  element  ?  Or  that  reasoning  which  acknowledges  that 
a  baptism  into  "  ideal  elements  "  —  as  into  repentance,  into  Christ, 
'&c.  —  can  be  symbolized  "  with  water  "  used  in  the  way  of  pouring 
and  sprinlvling  (though  these  are  not  the  ' '  natural  servitors  of 
baptizo  "),  but  denies  that  it  can  be  sj'mbolized  with  or  in  water, 
if  used  for  immersion  or  "dipping"?  Or  that  reasoning  which 
takes  baptizo  out  of  its  natural  element,  water,  —  although  these 
are  joined  together  in  closest  connection  in  the  Scriptures,  and 
apart,  at  times,  from  all  so-called  "  ideal  elements,"  — and  afflnns 
that  baptizo  and  the  use  of  water,  in  the  New  Testament,  have 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  each  other  ?  Or  that  reasoning  which 
would  lead  us  so  far  to  ignore  both  "fact  and  figure,"  that,  in  the 
illustration  of  the  destruction  of  a  ship  by  its  baptism  in  the  waters, 
we   are   to   see  nothing  but  the  "naked  idea  of  destruction,"  a 


86  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

^^destruction  of  the  ship,  however  effected"?  Or,  finally,  that 
reasoning  which  avers  that  baptizo  demands  "  intusposition," 
"  withinness,"  "  intusposition  in  a  fluid  element,"  for  an  "indefi- 
nite period,"  longer  or  shorter,  and  afflnns  or  concedes  that  the 
fathers  never,  except  in  case  of  "pressing  necessity,"  performed 
the  baptismal  rite  without  thrice  intusposing  the  naked  bodj^  of 
the  candidate  in  water,  saying  at  the  same  time,  "This  servant 
of  God  is  baptized,"  &c.,  and  yet  denies  that  this  "momentary 
water-covering,"  or  "water-burial,"  was  "any  baptism  what- 
ever," or  "any  part  of  the  patristic  baptism  proper"?  We  are 
tempted  to  ask,  What  is  there  which  a  man  who  is  controUingly 
influenced  by  passion  or  prejudice,  or  some  like  pernicious  malady 
(or  infirmity) ,  will  not  try  to  prove  ?  And  yet  some  persons  have 
seen  in  this  treatise  of  Dale,  not  onlj^  the  "wit  of  Pascal,"  but 
the  "  logic  of  ChiUingworth." 

Our  readers,  however,  may  like  to  know  what  Dr.  Dale  does 
with  the  "momentary  water- covering  "  which  he  recognizes  "in 
the  ordinarj^  patristic  baptism."  This  covering,  or  burial,  he 
says,  was  not  a  baptism,  and  was  not  expressed  by  baptizo. 
' '  That  it  is  ever  used  in  patristic  writings  to  express  a  covering 
and  uncovering  of  water,  I  hare  never  seen  adequate  evidence." 
In  his  view,  this  covering  in  water  was  simply  a  means  of  effecting 
a  baptism  which  was  "  purely  spiritual "  in  its  nature.  The  water- 
covering  was  not  called  by  them  a  baptisma,  but  a  ccdypsis,  or 
catadysis,  a  tapJie  or  entJiapsis,  that  is,  a  "  covering,"  a  "  sinking- 
down,"  or  "  burial,"  and  was  merety  a  sort  of  side-issue  designed 
to  symbolize  the  "covering  of  Christ's  body  in  the  sepulchre," 
and  to  represent  sin  as  "  left  drowned  at  the  bottom  of  the  pool." 
And  this,  it  seems,  is  no  part  of  Christian  baptism !  Of  course 
their  ^^ momentary  water-covering  was  no  baptism;"  for  to  bap- 
tism there  is  "no  outcome."  Yet  their  catadysis,  or  sinking- 
down,  has,  per  se,  also  no  outcome.  Still,  notwithstanding  its 
"unlimited  continuance,"  the  fathers  secured  a  subsequent  ana- 
dysis,  or  rising-up ;  and  they  used  both  these  words  to  express 
their  haptisma,  and  their  baptisma  to  express  both  these  acts. 
They  did  not  use  baptisma  simply  "to  express  the  eflect  of  this 
covering,"  but  they  used  it  to  express  both  the  act  and  the  eff'ect. 
TertuUian  has  one  word  which  ought  to  have  set  Dale  right,  and 
which  utterly  confounds  all  that  he  has  written  on  patristic  bap- 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  87 

tism  as  being  solely  a  "  spiritual  effect."  That  one  word  is  this  : 
' '  Quomodo  et  ipsius  baptismi  carnalis  actus  quod  in  aqua,  mer- 
gimur,"  &c.,  —  "As  of  baptism  itself,  there  is  Si  i)liysical  act,  that 
we  are  immersed  in  water ;  a  spiritual  effect,  that  we  are  freed 
from  sins"  ("  De  Baptismo,"  cap.  ^Ai.,  C.  209).  Dr.  Dale,  in 
noticing  this  passage  of  TertuUian,  says  that  ' '  the  phj^sical  water- 
covering  is  expressly  distinguished  from  the  effect,"  &c.  This  is 
plain  enough,  and  what  nobody  denies.  He  says  that  "  the  physi- 
cal act  ...  no  more  constitutes  the  baptism,"  &c.  No  one  sup- 
poses that  it  constituted  the  whole  of  patristic  baptism.  He  refers 
finally  to  the  so-called  clinic  baptism  of  the  sick  and  dj^ing,  which 
was  a  "true,  perfect,  'most  glorious'  baptism,  while  it  was  no 
water- covering."  We  acknowledge  that  an  affusion  made  as  near 
like  an  immersion,  or  "  water- covering,"  as  possible,  was,  in  case 
of  "pressing  necessity,"  substituted  for  "immersion  in  water," 
and  under  such  circumstances  was  deemed  valid,  and  equal  in 
eflJcacy  to  the  "saving  bath."  But  why,  now,  could  not  Dr. 
Dale  have  acknowledged,  with  TertuUian,  that  "immersion  in 
water  "  was  "  the  physical  act "  of  baptism?  And  why  should  he, 
nay,  how  could  he,  maintain,  in  view  of  Tertullian's  assertion, 
that  "immersion  in  water  "had  no  more  essential  and  necessary 
connection  with  patristic  baptism  than  their  ex  ordine,  customary 
baptismal  anointing,  insufflation,  and  the  giving  of  salt,  milk,  and 
honey?  Do  our  readers  wonder,  that,  to  certain  persons  not 
naturally  stolid,  a  good  deal  of  Dale's  "Patristic  Baptism,"  not 
to  speak  of  his  other  volumes,  is  hard  reading? 

We  notice  in  his  last  volume  an  important-looking  syllogism. 
having  reference  to  Cj'prian's  views  of  baptism.  This  "father" 
(of  aspersion  and  infant-baptism)  was  once  asked  by  the  presbjiier 
Magnus,  "Whether  the  sick  who  were  not  bathed,  but  perfused 
(non  loti  sed  perfusi) ,  with  the  saving  water,  are  to  be  regarded  as 
legitimate  Christians?"  His  reply  was,  that  "in  the  saving 
sacraments,  when  necessity  compels,  and  God  grants  his  favor, 
divine  compendiums  "  (such  as  perfusion  or  affusion,  and  asper- 
sion, that  is,  pouring  or  sprinkling)  "will  confer  the  whole  on 
believers ;  .  .  .  whence  it  appears  that  the  sprinkling  of  water 
possesses  equal  A^alue  with  the  saving  bath,"  —  In  sacramentis 
salutaribus,  necessitate  cogente,  et  Deo  indulgentiam,.  suam  lar- 
giente,   totum    credentibus    conferunt    divina   compendia.    .    .    . 


88  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

Unde  apparet  aspersionem  quoque  aqum  instar  salutaris  lavacri 
ohtinere. 

The  reader  will  safel}"  infer,  from  Magnus'  asking  such  a  ques- 
tion as  the  above,  that  anj^  thing  less  than  a  complete  immersion 
in  baptism  was  generally  regarded  as  a  matter,  to  saj'  the  least,  of 
ver}^  doubtful  propriety.  Indeed,  Cyprian's  argumentation  has  sole 
reference  to  the  mode  or  act  of  baptism,  and  supposes,  in  almost 
its  every  sentence,  that  immersion  was  deemed  the  regular  and 
proper,  or  (as  Hofling  states  it  in  his  "  Sakrament  der  Taufe," 
p.  48)  the  "  more  perfect  and  effective,  form  of  baptism."  Hence 
we  may  also  infer  that  the  iiTegularit}'  of  the  "  mode,"  as  well  as 
the  frequently  culpable  deferring  of  the  ordinance  to  a  sick-bed, 
was  one  reason  wh}-  "  clinics,"  on  recovering  from  sickness,  were 
prohibited  from  entering  "holy  orders,"  or  the  ministr}'.  Dr. 
Cave  (in  his  "Primitive  Christianity"  p.  150)  says  of  this  clinic 
baptism,  that  "  it  was  accounted  a  less  solemn  and  perfect  kind 
of  baptism,  parth"  because  it  was  done,  not  b}'  immersion,  but  by 
sprinkling  ( ? )  ;  partly  because  persons  were  supposed  at  such  a 
time  to  desire  it  chiefl3'out  of  a  fear  of  death."  And  here  we  ma}* 
properly  state  that  even  the  compend,  perfusion,  like  the  pericliusis 
of  Novatian  (the  first  chnic  mentioned  in  history) ,  was  no  mere 
hand-pouring  of  water,  a  mode  of  baptism  which  was  never  pic- 
tured on  the  old  frescos,  but  probablj'  a  poming  around  and  over 
the  whole  bod}',  and  thus,  instead  of  being  a  very  slight  pouring 
of  water  on  the  head,  or  a  mere  sprinkling  of  water  on  a  part 
of  the  face,  or  a  finger-tip  moistening  of  the  forehead,  was  a  very 
thorough  washing  of  the  bod}',  and  almost  ec[uiA-alent  to  a  bath  or 
immersion,  so  far  as  a  wetting  is  concerned.  "  The  ancients,"  saj's 
Salmasius,  "  did  not  baptize  otherwise  than  b}'  immersion,  either 
once  or  thrice ;  except  clinics,  or  j)ersons  confined  to  theu'  beds, 
who  were  baptized  in  a  manner  of  which  the}'  were  capable ;  not 
in  the  entire  laver,  as  those  who  plunge  the  head  under  water,  but 
the  v:liole  body  had  water  poured  upon  it."  Indeed,  the  verb 
perfundo  is  frequentl}'  used  of  bathing  in  the  baths  and  in  rivers, 
and  is  often  wrongly  rendered  ' '  sprinkle ' '  b}'  Br.  Dale  (see 
"  Johannic  Baptism,"  p.  317)  and  b}'  other  Pedobaptists. 

Cyprian,  moreover,  bases  his  "sdew  of  the  validity  of  perfusion  or 
aspersion  in  case  of  necessity  mainly  hy  an  appeal  to  the  Old 
Testament.     He  does  not  say  that  haptizo  in  its  secondary  mean- 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  89 

ing  denotes  merety  a  washing  or  ablution,  regardless  of  foiTii ;  or 
that  baptism  is  "  any  application  of  water  ;  "  or  that  it  is  simplj-  a 
"  controlling  influence,"  without  any  kind  of  water  use  or  appli- 
cation. He  does  not  refer  to  the  custom  of  the  earlier  churches, 
nor  to  any  "  apostolic  tradition."  He  does  not  assert  or  insinuate 
that  John  must  have  baptized'  the  immense  multitudes  by  pouring 
or  sprinkling,  perhaps  with  some  "instrument,"  or  that  the 
"about  three  thousand"  could  not  have  been  immersed  by  the 
apostles  on  the  da}-  of  Pentecost.  He  does  not  say,  with  Joseph 
Addison  Alexander,  that  immersion  is  no  more  essential  to  the 
rite  than  nudity ;  and  that  as  every  elder  need  not  necessarily  be 
an  old  man,  and  as  the  Lord's  Supper  may  be  administered  at 
other  times  than  in  the  evening,  so  the  baptismal  rite  may  be 
celebrated  otherwise  than  in  its  possibl}"  original  form  of  immer- 
sion. He  certainly  did  not,  in  any  attempt  to  prove  a  change 
of  meaning,  saj',  with  the  distinguished  Princeton  professor,  that 
to  ' '  take  tea  ' '  does  not  always  impl}-  a  partaking  of  that  bever- 
age. In  fact,  he  argues  the  case  in  most  respects  very  differently 
from  our  modern  Pedobaptists.  And  again  :  we  cannot  but 
observe  how  careful  C^yprian  is,  not  to  designate  any  of  these 
' '  divine  abridgments  ' '  —  which  were  available  only  through  the 
special  indulgence  of  God,  and  were  to  be  practised  only  in  case 
of  necessitas  cogens  ("  pressing  necessity")  ;  that  is,  on  a  bed  of 
sickness  and  death  —  as  a  proper  baptism,  but  that  he  rather 
regards  them  as  something,  which,  through  divine  favor  and  press- 
ing need,  will  answer  for  baptism,  or  have  the  same  efficacy  as 
baptism.  In  this  sense  he  speaks  of  the  sick  as  having  been  bap- 
tized, and  he  designates  such  pouring  or  sprinkling  abridgment, 
which,  "when  necessity  compels,"  obtains  like  the  saving  bath 
(and  hence  not  the  same  as  the  sa^'ing  bath,  Cj'prian  himself  being 
judge),  as  ecclesiastical  baptism,  not  scriptural,  or  proper,  or  regu- 
lar, ex  ordine  baptism,  but  something  which,  in  case  of  uecessit}', 
would  be  accepted  b}-  the  church  as  baptism.  EA-identl}-,  those 
who  practise  the  ' '  abridgments ' '  nowadaj's  could  get  but  httle 
comfort  or  encouragement  from  C^'prian,  and  still  less  from  the 
other  church  fathers  of  his  time.  "It  is  customar}-,"  sa3's  Rev. 
James  Chrystal,  presbj-ter  of  the  Protestant-Episcopal  Church  (in 
his  "History  of  the  Modes  of  Baptism,"  p.  63),  "to  represent 
Cj'prian  as  asserting  that  the  mode  is  a  matter  of  indifference. 


90  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

No  author  is  misquoted  so  constantly  for  the  present  irregularities 
in  using  sprinkling  and  pouring"  (vice  trine  immersion,  which 
this  writer  advocates)  "in  cases  where  no  necessity  requires,  and 
none  so  unjustly."  Dr.  Dale  knows  that  they  themselves  never 
performed  the  baptismal  rite  but  b}^  immersion,  except  in  case 
of  necessity,  when,  in  view  of  impending  death,  they  performed 
on  the  clinic  a  rite  as  nearly  resembling  a  "  water- covering  "  as 
might  be,  "  that  no  soul  should  be  lost,"  For  modern  advocates 
of  sprinkling,  therefore,  to  appeal  to  the  church  fathers  for  support 
and  comfort,  is  wholly  futile,  and  sometimes,  as  we  have  seen  it, 
looks  hypocritical  and  dishonest.  Better  do  as  Wolff  does,  — give 
up  the  fathers  entirel3^  "We  renounce  completely,"  he  says, 
"  the  use  of  the  fathers,  and  we  shall  not  invoke  their  testimony 
in  support  of  our  doctrines  on  baptism."  Yet,  upon  Cj'prian's 
statements  as  given  above.  Dr.  Dale  bases  this  sj^llogism  :  "  Sprin- 
khng  water  does,  Cyprianly,  baptize ;  sprinlding  water  does, 
under  no  condition,  clij) :  therefore  Cj^Drian's  baptism  is  not  dip." 
Certainl}'  not  in  this  instance ;  but  this  does  not  prove,  what  the 
syllogism  seems  to  imply,  that  dip  wiU  not  baptize,  nor  that 
Cyprian's  ex  ordine  and  proper  baptism,  in  common  with  that  of  the 
fathers  generally,  was  not  by  trine  immersion.^ 


^  It  has  been  objected  against  us  as  Baptists,  that  we,  in  common  with 
others,  use  but  a  very  meagre  "  compend"  of  a  proper  "  supper"  when  we 
celebrate  the  Holy  Communion ;  as  also,  that,  in  many  other  respects,  we 
depart  widely  from  the  "mode"  of  its  original  observance.  We  grant,  of 
course,  that  we  do  not  partake,  as  the  Saviour  did,  of  unleavened  bread;  and 
we  see  no  necessity  for  partaking  of  the  bread  and  the  cup  at  night,  in  the 
time  of  Easter,  in  company  with  just  eleven  or  twelve  male  persons,  in  a 
reclining  posture,  in  a  large  furnished  chamber,  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem, 
&c. :  for  our  Saviour  has  nowhere  commanded  these  things.  He  simply 
bids  his  disciples  eat  and  drink,  while  he  says  nothing  about  the  time,  fre- 
quency, or  "mode,"  of  eating  and  drinking.  His  words  are,  "Do  this"  — 
to  wit,  eat  and  drink  these  emblems  —  "in  remembrance  of  me ;"  or,  as  Paul 
has  it,  "  As  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  do  this  in  remembrance  of  me."  '^As  often  as 
ye  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup,"  &c.  (1  Cor.  si.  25,  26.)  We  do  not 
contend  for  any  special  "  mode  "  of  eating  and  drinking,  nor  for  any  special 
mode  of  baptizing.  With  any  particular  mode  of  doing  these  things  we  have 
at  present  but  little  concern. 

In  regard  to  the  "compend"  character  of  our  Eucharistic  observance, 
we  remark,  that,  although  Paul  in  one  instance  (1  Cor.  xi.  20)  speaks  of  the 
"Lord's  Supper,"  he  does  at  the  same  time  dissuade  his  erring  brethren 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  91 

Both  Beecher  and  Dale  have  argued  much  and  loosely  from  the 
supposed  signification  of  the  rite,  confounding  in  many  instances 
the  imagined  design  and  significance  or  efficacy  of  the  baptismal 
ordinance  with  the  meaning  of  the  word  b}^  itself.  Dr.  Dale  has 
spent  any  amount  of  time  and  pains  in  ascertaining  what  Christian 
baptism  was  to  the  patrists,  or  church  fathers.  Why,  it  was  every 
thing  to  them,  —  a  grace-giving  sacrament,  a  saving  ordinance, 
the  seal  of  the  second  life,  the  saving  impress,  yea,  the  divine, 
holy,  mystical,  spiritual,  heavenly,  roj^al,  immortalizing,  inviolable, 
indissoluble,  unassailable  seal  and  pledge  of  one's  eternal  salvation. 
"  Being  baptized,"  saj^s  Clement  of  Alexandria,  "we  are  illumi- 
nated ;  being  illuminated,  we  become  sons  ;  being  made  sons,  we 
become  perfect;  being  made  perfect,  we  become  inunortal." 
According  to  Chrysostom,  "Baptism  is  a  ransom  to  the  captive, 
remission  of  every  debt,  the  death  of  sin,  the  regeneration  of  the 
soul,  a  robe  of  light,  a  seal  not  to  be  violated,  a  chariot  to  heaven." 
"  Some,"  he  says,  "  think  that  the  heavenly  gTace  "  (of  baptism) 
"  consists  onl}'  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ;  but  I  have  reckoned  up 
ten  advantages  of  it,"  &c.  With  Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  baptism 
is  the  great  and  beautiful  phjdactery,  the  garment  of  incorruption, 
our  perfection,  illumination,  sanctification,  grace,  a  seal,  the 
rectification  of  our  fallen  image,  our  second  birth  ;  which  is  of  the 
da}-,  and  is  free  ;  which  emancipates  from  passions,  and  takes  awaj^ 
every  veil  of  our  birth,  and  conducts  us  to  the  life  above.  "  Bap- 
tism," he  says,  "is  the  illumination  of  souls,  a  change  of  life, 
'the  answer  of  the  conscience  toward  God,'  the  strengthening 
of  om'  weakness,  the  putting-away  of  the  flesh,  the  following  of 
the  Spirit,  the  partaking  of  the  Word,  the  amendment  of  our  for- 
mation, the  purging  of  sin,  the  participation  of  fight,  the  dissipa- 


f rom  regarding  and  obsen'ing  this  ordinance  as  a  feast,  or  as  in  any  way 
connected  with  a  feast,  and  sharply  reproves  them  for  eating  and  drinking 
on  these  occasions  to  excess.  "Have  ye  not,"  he  asks  them,  "houses  to 
eat  and  drink  in  ?  "  "  If  any  man  is  himgry,  let  him  eat  at  home."  Dr. 
Eobinson  remarks  that  "the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  probably  took 
place  at  the  close  of  the  proper  meal,  immediately  before  the  third  cup,  or 
cup  of  blessing ; ' '  and  both  Luke  and  Paul  expressly  state  that  the  cup  was 
not  given  until  "  after  supper."  The  paschal  supper  is  not  obligatory 
upon  us  as  Christians;  for  "Christ  our  passover  has  been  sacrificed  for 
us." 


92  STUDIES  OW  BAPTISM. 

tion  of  darkness,  the  chariot  to  God,  the  walking  with  Christ, 
the  support  of  faith,  the  perfection  of  understanding,  the  key  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  the  exchange  of  life,  the  abrogation  of 
slavery,  the  loosening  of  bonds,  the  remodelling  of  our  composi- 
tion. Baptism  —  what  more  is  it  necessar}' to  enumerate?  It  is 
the  noblest  and  most  magnificent  of  the  gifts  of  God.  For  as 
some  things  are  called  the  hol}^  of  holies,  ...  so  also  is  this  bap- 
tism more  holj  than  all  the  other  baptisms  we  possess.  As  Christ, 
the  giver  of  this,  is  called  by  manj^  and  diverse  names,  so  also 
this  gift,"  &c.  (see  Hagenbach's  "  History  of  Doctrines,"  vol.  i. 
p.  387,  where  the  original  of  this  panegyric  is  given ;  also  Dale's 
"  Patristic  Baptism,"  p.  495.)  Time  would  fail  us  to  tell  of  all  the 
patristic  praises  of  baptism,  or  "  illumination  ;  "  yet  we  are  gravely 
assured  by  Dr.  Dale,  times  without  number,  that  the  "  all  hoty" 
baptism  of  the  fathers  "  was  not  a  mere  dipping  in  water."  Did 
ever  a  Baptist  writer  suppose  it  was  ?  or  did  ever  a  Baptist  Chris- 
tian dream  that  the  whole  of  a  genuine  Christian  baptism  was  ' '  a 
mere  dipping  in  water  "  ? 

There  is,  we  must  saj^,  something  which  looks  almost  like  decep- 
tion in  Dr.  Dale's  incursion  among  the  "fathers,"  and  his  report 
concerning  their  views  of  baptism.  His  ponderous  treatises  are 
entitled  "An  Inquiry  into  the  Usage  of  Baptizo."  Once  "bap- 
tism" was  discussed  under  the  two  heads  of  "  Mode  "  and  "  Sub- 
jects." Our  author  gives  but  slight  consideration  to  the  "  Sub- 
jects," and  but  little  to  its  modal  usage  ;  nor  does  he  inquire  into 
its  distinctive  and  proper  usage  as  an  act ;  but,  instead  of  this,  he 
devotes  his  treatises  mainly  to  a  consideration  of  the  effects  or 
benefits  of  baptism.  Indeed,  he  confounds,  as  we  have  seen,  act 
and  eflTect ;  and  this  confusion  -vitiates  his  whole  "Inquiry"  in 
general,  and  his  "Patristic  Baptism"  in  particular.  Instead, 
therefore,  of  visiting  the  fathers  to  inquire  into  their  views  of  the 
distinctivel}^  proper  meaning  and  usage  of  ha])tizo  in  itself  consid- 
ered, his  inquiry  rather  relates  to  the  influence  and  the  benefits, 
which,  in  their  ^dew,  attended  baptism.  Pie  found  out,  in  the 
course  of  his  stay  among  them,  that  they  attached  to  their  haptizo 
a  very  powerful^  controlling  and  most  blessed  influence,  in  case, 
at  least,  no  obex,  or  bar,  was  put  in  the  way ;  and  so  he  felt 
himself  not  wholl}"  out  of  place  in  their  society.  But  the  truth  is, 
he  visited  them  incognito,  or  under  disguise.     Had  he  disclosed 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  93 

his  pecuKar  views  to  the  "patrists,"  he  would  not  have  felt  much 
at  home  with  them.  He  did  not  affirm  in  their  presence  that 
there  was  no  specific  act  in  baptism  ;  that  a  ' '  momentary  covering 
in  water"  by  dipping  was  not  "any  baptism  whatever;"  that, 
so  far  as  haptizo  was  concerned,  the}''  might  just  as  well  "  drinJc " 
their  "impregnated,"  "medicated"  water,  as  to  be  thrice  im- 
mersed in  it;  that  haptizo  had  "no  concern  whatever"  in  the 
ritual  baptisms  of  the  New  Testament ;  that,  in  all  the  New-Testa- 
ment Scriptures,  there  is  no  water-baptism  inculcated  or  exempli- 
fied ;  and,  finally,  that  to  a  living  man  a  proper  water-baptism 
would  be  "  death  by  drowning."  He  was  prudentlj'  silent  on  all 
these  points ;  and  instead  of  asking  after  the  carnalis  actus, 
the  distinctively  proper  phj'sical  act  or  usage  of  baptizo,  he  merely 
inquired  what  were  their  A'iews  of  the  efficacy,  the  benefits,  and 
blessings  of  their  "  consecrated- water  "  baptism.  And  here  we 
may  imagine  that  the  golden-mouthed  Chrysostom,  speaking  for 
the  fathers  generallj^,  answered  him  as  follows  (see  in  Augustine, 
contra  Juliaimm,  lib.  i.,  "Ad  Baptizatos  ")  :  "  Ecce  libertatis 
serenitate  perfruuntur,  qui  tencbantur  pauUo  ante  captivi  et  cives 
ecclesise  sunt,  qui  fuerunt  in  perigrinationis  errore,  et  justitiae  in 
sorte  versantur,  qui  fuerunt  in  confusione  peccati.  Non  enim  tan- 
tum  sunt  liberi,  sed'et  sancti ;  non  tantum  sancti,  sed  et  justi; 
non  solum  justi,  sed  et  fiUi ;  non  solum  filii,  sed  et  heredes ;  non 
solum  heredes,  sed  et  fratres  Christi ;  nee  tantum  fratres  Christi ; 
sed  et  coheredes  ;  non  solum  coheredes,  sed  et  membra  ;  non  tan- 
tum membra,  sed  et  templum ;  non  tantum  templum,  sed  et  organa 
Spiritus,  viDES,  quot  sunt  baptismatis  largitates  "  !  "  You  see, 
Dr.  Dale,  how  many"  ("ten,"  at  least,  in  number)  "are  the 
BENEFITS  OF  BAPTISM"  !  Our  author,  having  returned  home,  has 
carefully  reported  to  us  all  these  and  several  other  largitates, 
or  largesses,  of  patristic  baptism,  and  tells  us  that  the  Christian 
baptism  of  the  fathers  was  something  more  than  a  mere  dipping 
in  water !  True  enough ;  but  what  have  these  largitates  really 
to  do  with  the  ritual  "  usage  of  haptizo ,' '  save  as  a  supposed  result 
of  its  "  usage  "  ?  And  here  we  may  remark,  that  perhaps  the  most 
eff'ective  popular  argument  which  Dr.  Dale  brings  to  bear  against 
the  modern  Baptists  is  the  imputing  to  them  the  belief  that  Chris- 
tian baj)tism  is  but  a  senseless,  meaningless  "  dipping  into 
water." 


94  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

Dr.  Hague  (in  his  "  Examination  of  Messrs.  Cooke  and  Towne," 
—  an  admirable  little  work,  with  its  acute  logic,  and  terse,  crispy 
style)  has  well  exposed  the  fallacy  and  danger  of  this  loose  reason- 
ing "  from  the  signification  of  the  rite,"  and  from  the  underlying 
assumption  that  "  the  thing  to  be  done  is  not  to  be  learned  from 
the  terms  of  the  law,  but  b}^  ascertaining  the  moral  meaning  of  the 
rite,  and  choosing  for  ourseh^es  the  most  appropriate  manner  to 
express  it."  "  This  mode  of  argumentation,"  he  says,  "  sets  aside 
the  words  of  the  law  of  Christ  as  insufficient,  and  not  adapted  to 
explain  the  will  of  the  Lawgiver  ;  "  and  that  thus  "  the  law,  instead 
of  making  the  action  plain,  uses  an  enacting  term  which  is  uncer- 
tain, equivocal,  determines  nothing  as  to  manner,  and  leaves  the 
inquirer  to  infer  what  ought  to  be  done  from  the  spiritual  meaning 
of  the  rite."  Dr.  Hague  objects  further  and  truthfully  as  regards 
Dr.  Dale's  theory,  that  "it  annihilates  a  positive  rite  of  Christ. 
Rejecting  the  very  word  which  Christ  has  chosen  as  the  exposition 
of  His  will,  it  seizes  the  abstract  idea  of  which  His  institution  is 
said  to  be  an  emblem,  and  then  makes  new  rites  as  emblems  of 
that  idea.  .  .  .  Any  abstract  idea,  or  any  spiritual  truth,  may  be 
represented  by  various  outward  signs  or  emblems.  Yet  who  but 
God  has  the  authority  to  exalt  one  of  these  into  an  emblematic 
rite,  and  make  the  observance  of  it  binding  upon  the  conspience? 
And  if  He  selects  one,  impresses  on  it  His  own  seal,  invests  it  with 
the  dignity  of  an  ordinance,  and  commands  it  to  be  regarded  as 
His  appointment,  who  has  the  right  to  set  it  aside,  and  substitute 
another,  on  the  plea  that  it  will  do  as  well,  and  answer  the  same 
end?  "  We  cannot  quote  further  from  Dr.  Hague  ;  but  the  speci- 
men we  have  given  ma}^  assure  our  readers  that  a  large  part  of  his 
masterly  little  work  furnishes  as  complete  a  refutation  of  Beecher 
and  Dale  as  it  did  of  Messrs.  Cooke  and  Towne. 

We  again  notice  in  Dr.  Dale's  treatment  of  baptizo  a  frequent 
confounding  of  mode  with  act.  He,  indeed,  denies  in  general  that 
baptizo  expresses  any  act.  Were  he  tied  down  to  prove  any  specific 
act  of  baptizo,  he  would  be  as  powerless  as  an  infant.  It  is  onl}^ 
when  he  leaves  tangible,  visible  acts,  and  soars  away  into  the  cloud- 
land  of  influence,  that  he  can  make  a  show  of  doing  an}^  thing. 
But  he  does  not  always  remain  in  this  upper  sphere.  Through 
some  weakness  or  inconsistency  he  occasionally  comes  down  to 
earth,  and  is  easily  caught,  or  rather  he  surrenders  both  himself 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  95 

and  Ms  argument.  Thus  one  of  his  "postulates,"  and  to  his 
mind  a  chief  support  of  Jiis  "theory,"  is,  that  active  transitive 
verbs  are  divisible  into  two  distinct  classes,  — the  one  directlj''  ex- 
pressing action,  hke  bapto;  the  other  direct^  expressing  condition, 
an  example  of  which  is  baptizo,  —  and  that,  "  as  a  point  be3'ond 
controversy,  no  word  can  belong  to  both  these  classes  "  ("  Classic 
Baptism,"  p.  234).  But,  while  asserting  that  baptizo  expresses 
"condition  characterized  by  complete  intusposition,"  he  is  yet 
forced  to  acknowledge  that  the  ' '  condition  of  intusposition  in- 
volves some  act  adequate  for  its  accomphshment,"  &c.  ("Judaic 
Baptism,"  p.  51.)  While  denying  also  that  baptizo,  or  any  other 
word,  can  "express  both  act  and  condition,"  he  yet  saj-s  (and 
here  is  another  instance  of  his  frequent  giving  and  taking  away 
almost  at  the  same  breath)  that  "act  and  condition  may  be  in- 
separably united  in  one  word  "  ("  Classic  Baptism,"  p.  65) .  Thus 
the  "  great  gulf"  which  in  Dr.  Dale's  imagination  (see  Id.,  p.  26) 
was  supposed  to  separate  active  transitive  verbs  into  two  distinct 
classes  of  action  and  condition  is,  in  fact,  disowned  or  annihilated 
by  Dr.  Dale  himself.  Look,  for  a  moment,  to  his  statements  in 
regard  to  a  change  of  meaning  in  bapto.  This  word  of  "  trivial " 
import  primarily  denotes  not  only  action,  but  a  particular  form  of 
action,  — to  dip.  But  in  its  secondar}'  meaning,  "to  dj'c,"  it,  like 
baptizo,  chiefly  expresses  "condition,"  and  exerts  also  a  very 
powerful  and  permanent  "  controlling  influence  "  (as,  for  example, 
to  dip  in,  or  bapt  with,  aniline  colors),  and  this,  too,  notwith- 
standing the  Dale  "postulates,"  that  no  word  can  express  both 
act  and  condition,  and  that  a  gulf  impassable  separates  these  two 
classes  of  verbs.  And  what  shall  we  do  with  another  postulate 
of  his,  that  a  long-continued  withinness,  or  "  intusposition  of  un- 
limited continuance,"  lil^e  that  of  baptizo  (wh}'  not  buthizo,  kata- 
pontizo,  kataduo,  as  these,  for  certain,  "  never  take  out  what  they 
put  in  "  ?  —  perhaps,  after  all,  the  intusposition  needs  to  be  limited, 
in  order  that  we  maj  see  the  amount  of  influence  received  b}'  the 
intusposed  object) ,  is  necessar}^  to  create  this  ' '  controlling  influ- 
ence"? "Language  development,"  he  saj's,  "protests  against 
the  monstrosity  which  allies  the  profoundest  influence  with  a  dip- 
ping." Yet  here  is  that  insignificant,  almost  contemptible  bapto 
(to  "dip,"  "a  feeble  word")  used  b}^  the  Greeks  to  express 
the  very  powerful  controlling  influence  of  d^'eing !     Our  author, 


96  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

indeed,  sometimes  speaks  as  if  there  were  two  different  stems  to 
bajyto,  — one  meaning  to  dip,  and  the  other  (from  which  he  derives 
his  baptizo  of  influence)  meaning  to  dye.  Yet  even  he  virtually 
disowns  his  own  statement  when  he  asserts  that  bcqjto,  to  dj'e,  has 
"its  origin  in  dipping  into  coloring-liquids,"  and  that  "the  pri- 
mary meaning  of  the  verb  bapto  is  to  dip."  Nay,  he  himself 
could  not  so  easily  prove  that  the  meaning  of  baptizo  has  in  a 
most  remarkable  manner  changed  from  mersion  without  influence 
to  influence  without  mersion,  had  not  his  bapto  set  the  example 
of  a  change  from  dipping  without  d^'eing  to  dyeing  without  dip- 
ping. The  truth  is,  our  author  seldom  lets  his  own  "  postulates  " 
stand  long  enough  to  give  any  one  an  opportunity  de  novo  to 
attempt  their  overthrow.  By  these  frequent  inconsistencies  and 
truthful  concessions  he  removes  the  foundation  entirely'  away 
from  the  superstructure  he  has  labored  to  build,  and  his  castle-in- 
the-air  theory  of  "  condition  "  and  "  influence  "  falls,  by  his  own 
hands,  a  shapeless  mass  of  ruins.  Thus  he  gives  us,  in  fact,  aU 
we  can  ask  or  desu-e  when  he  concedes  that  baptizo  "  primaiily 
makes  demand  for  the  intusposition  of  its  object  within  a  fluid 
element  b}^  anj^"  (or  "  some")  "  competent  act."  The  truth  of 
this  concession  is  well-nigh  self-evident.  Almost  slmj  child  can  see 
that  an  intusposed  condition  must  commonly  be  preceded  b}^  an  act 
of  intusposition.  If  baptizomenos  (baptized)  denotes  a  "  condition 
of  complete  intusposition"  of  any  person  or  object,  then  the 
active  baptizo  must  first  put  such  person  or  object  into  that  state. 
The  form  or  mode  of  the  act  is  to  us,  in  the  main,  a  matter  of 
indifiference.  Yet,  over  and  over  again,  Dale  denies  that  baptizo 
expresses  any  ^^tJie  act,"  any  "particular  act,"  any  "  specific 
act,"  any  "definite  act,"  any  "  characterizing  act,"  ^^  any  act," 
but  "condition;"  which  condition,  however,  "involves  some 
act."  Truly  there  must  be  some  act  expressed  or  implied  in 
baptizo,  or  no  one  would  know  how  to  obey  the  command  to  bap- 
tize or  to  be  baptized.  It  seems  almost  like  blasphemy  to  say  that 
God's  inspired  Word  has  enjoined  a  ritual  baptism,  and  3'et  has 
not  specified  or  indicated  any  ' '  the  act ' '  for  us  to  perform.  Dr. 
Dale  sa3-s  that  John  and  others  (instead  of  performing  any  proper 
baptismal  act)  merely  symbolized  baptism  b}'  a  water-rite  which 
has  no  connection  with  baptizo,  or  baptizo  with  it ;  and  he  some- 
times calls  this  baptizing  "  symbolh',"  which  is  another  confusion. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  97 

We  believe  that  John  baptized  sjTnbohcally ;  in  other  words,  that 
his  water-baptism  was  a  sjTnbol  or  sign  of  repentance :  but  this 
baptizing  symbolically  is  a  world-wide  different  thing  from  sjTnbol- 
izing  baptism  ;  which  thing  John  was  not  commissioned  to  do.  But 
does  Dr.  Dale  still  ask  us  what  is  "  the  act "  of  baptizo?  "Well,  we 
will  take  his  most  frequent  representative  word  for  baptizo^  "  in- 
tuspose,"  —  a  favorite  word  with  him  (in  import  not  displeasing 
to  us) ,  though  Carson  did  use  it,  and  though,  like  immerse,  com- 
pounded with  a  preposition,  —  and  our  answer  would  be,  The  act 
of  baptizo  is  to  put  within,  to  put  (in  close  contact)  something 
within  something,  "generally  in  a  fluid  element."  The  act, 
thus,  is  definite  enough ;  though  the  mode  of  the  act  is  indeed  left 
indeterminate.  Thus  it  maybe  true  that  "there  is  no  form  of 
act  inherent  in  baptizo ;  ' '  but  this  is  far  enough  from  proving  that 
baptizo  does  not  express  "  any  act."  All  we  ask  of  Dr.  Dale  is, 
that  when  he  uses  a  water-rite,  and  calls  it  baptism,  he  will  "  in- 
tuspose  "  without  any  fear  of  a  drowning,  using  any  "  mode  "  or 
"form"  which  may  please  him  best.  And  is  our  conviction 
utterly  baseless,  that  if  Dr.  Dale,  or  smj  other  well-informed' 
Pedobaptist,  were  convinced  that  his  soul's  salvation  depended. 
upon  a  proper  water-baptism,  he  would  cause  himself  to  bej  im- 
mersed in  the  name  of  the  Trinity  without  delay  ? 

We  notice,  finally,  in  Dr.  Dale's  method,  great  looseness  and 
inaccuracy  in  the  use  of  dictionaries,  and  in  his  explication  of  the 
meanings  of  words.  We  will  imagine  one  or  two  instances  to.  illus- 
trate his  methods.  Our  Saviour,  when  instituting  the  ordinance  of 
the  Supper,  said,  "  Take,  eat."  Our  author  turns  to  the  lexicons, 
and  under  the  word  "  eat  "  he  finds  many  difi'erent  meanings.  He 
calls  them,  in  general,  not  tropical  or  figurative,  but  secondary 
meanings,  and  regards  them  mainly  as  independent  of  the  pri- 
mary, and  as  having  a  status  of  their  own.  Thus  the  "  chain  of 
significations"  is  broken,  and  their  "  natural  relation"  dissolved. 
This  is  the  foundation  error  of  his  most  baseless  and  unphilosophi- 
cal  assumption,  that  baptizo,  ha\dng  acquired  a  supposed 'sacondarj' 
meaning  of  "  controlhng  influence,"  therefore  discards  and  loses 
all  reference  to  its  primarj^  "  gi'and,  sole  characteristic"  and 
"  vital  "  meaning  of  mersion  and  "  envelopment."  Because,  in 
the  words  of  Blair,  "a  multitude  of  words  once  figurative  may  by 
long  use  come  to  lose  their  figurative  power,"  our  author  loosely 


98  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

infers,  and  would  have  us  believe,  that  they  thus  lose  all  resem- 
blance and  reference  to  their  original  selves  ;  and  it  is  in  this  way' 
alone  that  he  can  get  out  of  the  "  intusposition,"  the  "within- 
ness,"  demanded  by  baptizo,  and  thus  escape  a  drowning.  The 
primary  import  of  ' '  eating  ' '  he  will  acknowledge  to  be  a  chewing 
and  swallowing  of  food ;  but  among  the  secondar}^  uses  he  reqol- 
lects  such  expressions  as  these  :  "A  cancer  eats  flesh,"  "Eust  eats 
iron,"  "  Their  tuord  will  eat  as  doth  a  canker,"  "The  sivwd  of 
Jehovah  shall  eat  flesh,"  &c.  Here  a  literal  meaning  and  the  idea 
of  a  definite  mode  must,  of  course,  be  given  up.  Take  the  exam- 
ple of  the  sword  (Deut.  xxxii.  42)  in  the  Hebrew.  There  is  no  eat- 
ing here  either  "  in  fact,  figure,  or  imagination."  What !  shall  we 
picture  to  ourselves  a  sword  furnished  with  mouth  and  teeth,  &c., 
and  sitting  down  with  knife  and  fork  before  a  plate  of  flesh  ?  In- 
credible and  monstrous  !  Or  take  the  words  applied  to  the  Sav- 
iour, "  The  zeal  of  thine  house  hath  eaten  me  up."  Shall  we 
imagine  "  zeal  "  to  be  metamorphosed  and  incarnated  into  "  Mr." 
Zeal,  furnished  with  a  large  mouth,  huge  teeth,  and  capacious 
stomach,  and  hterally  eating  up  and  swallowing  down  the  Saviour? 
What  an  outrage  upon  common  sense  and  all  propriety  !  No  :  the 
abstract  idea  of  all  these  and  other  eating  examples  is  that  of 
devouring  or  consuming  "without  regard  to  any  form  of  act,"  and 
with  "  supreme  indifference  to  mode."  But  how  many  wa^-s  and 
modes  there  are  (a  "  myriad  "  at  least)  of  devouring  and  consum- 
ing !  "  The  seven  wise  men  of  Greece  "  (or  of  any  other  country) 
' '  could  not  declare  the  nature  or  mode  of  an}"  given  '  eating '  by  the 
naked  help  of  '  eat.'  "  "If  ever  a  word  lost  an  element  which  was 
originally  characteristic  of  it,  such  a  word  is  '  eat.'  "  But  what  sJiall 
be  the  mode  of  our  consuming  the  consecrated  bread?  We  may 
as  well  adopt  the  mode  suggested  by  our  friend  Professor  Milo  P. 
Jewett,  as  being  the  most  significant,  simple,  and  convenient, 
adapted  to  infants  as  well  as  to  adults  ;  namely,  that  of  crumbling 
the  bread  on  the  floor  with  our  fingers.  Who  can  doubt  that  this 
is  the  way  by  which  it  msij  and  should  be  consumed  ? 

But  our  Saviour  also  gave  the  cup,  and  said,  "  Drink  all  je.  of 
it."  But  "  drinlc  "  has  even  more  definitions  than  the  word  "  eat," 
and  is  encompassed  with  the  same  difficulties.  It  meant  primarily 
to  swallow  as  a  liquid  ;  but  the  literal  meaning  is  lost,  and  the  mode 
must  be  given  up.     Think  of  one's  ears  drinking  luords,  or  a 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  99 

smoker  drinJcing  tobacco,  or  Eloisa  in  Pope's  verses  drinJcing  "  de- 
licious poison ' '  from  tlie  eye  of  Abelard  in  a  literal  sense  !  ^  In  this 
last  example  shall  we  convert  Abelard 's  eye  into  a  cup,  and  Eloisa's 
eyes  into  a  mouth,  and  thus  picture  her  as  drinking  literally  from 
the  poisoned  cup  ?  What  nonsense  and  absurdity !  No  :  the  mode 
of  drinliing  in  this  case  was  by  gazing  or  beholding.  And,  if  we 
reverently  gaze  at  or  behold  the  cup  of  communion,  is  not  this 
incontestably  one  mode  of  drinking  thereof?  And,  if  we  do  it  sin- 
cerely and  with  right  hearts,  shall  we  not  be  accepted  of  God?  Is 
not  the  religion  of  Christ  a  spieitual  religion,  caring  little  about 
mere  externalities  ?  And  shall  the  Church  of  God  be  forever  di\id- 
ed  by  our  contentions  about  "  the  form  of  a  form,"  "  the  shadow 
of  a  shade  ' '  ? 

And  this  is  right  reasoning  and  philosophic  and  scriptural  inter- 
pretation !  Let  us  here  calmly  listen  to  the  weight}^  words  of  Pro- 
fessor Irah  Chase:  "The  question  to  be  decided  hj  the  honest 
and  unsophisticated  inquirer  is,  not  whether  the  word  '  baptize,'  or 
some  kindred  expression,  may  not  in  some  connection  have  been 
used  by  some  writer  in  an  improper  or  figurative  way,  so  as  not  to 
imply  strictly  an  immersion,  but  what  was  the  act  which  we  have 
reason  to  beheve  that  our  Lord  had  in  mind  when  he  instituted 
baptism."  And  still  another  word  from  Dr.  Chase's  associate  pro- 
fessor and  friend,  the  sainted  Henr}'  J.  Ripley :  "  The  honest  con- 
clusions of  philology  ought  at  length  to  be  acquiesced  in,  and  not 
to  be  unsettled  by  suspicions  and  surmises  more  shadow}^  than 
real." 

1  "  Still  on  that  breast  enamoured  let  me  lie ; 
Still  drink  delicious  poison  from  tby  eye." 

Pope's  Eloisa  to  Abelard,  lines  121, 122. 


100  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM, 


CHAPTEE  XI\. 

THE    "influence   THEORY  "    IN   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT. 

WE  now  propose  to  ascertain  what  the  "  controlling-influence 
theory"  has  done  with  the  baptisms  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Most  Pedobaptists  have  acknowledged  that  the  classic 
baptizo,  in  its  primary  sense,  signified  to  immerse,  but  claim  that 
the  meaning  of  the  word,  ti-ansfen'ed  to  the  New-Testament 
sphere,  was  changed  by  religious  usage.  That  the  Greek  usage  of 
Jewish-Christian  writers  should  differ  somewhat  from  'the  Greek 
of  classic  Paganism  in  idiom,  and  in  the  meaning  or  application 
of  some  words,  is  reasonable  to  suppose,  and  is  most  certainly  true  : 
but  to  conceive  that  a  word  of  such  specific  import  as  baptizo;  a 
word  in  common  use  among  the  Greeks  and  throughout  the  Greek- 
speaking  world  for  centuries,  used  at  least  by  the  poet  Pindar  in 
the  sixth  centur}^  before  Christ  in  a  compounded  form ;  a  word 
which  (in  common  use  from  the  time  of  Pindar  to  that  of  Jose- 
phus,  a  contemporary  of  the  apostles)  meant,  as  many  of  our  oppo- 
nents now  maintain,  not  onty  to  immerse,  but  to  sink,  yea,  sink  to 
the  bottom,  and  drown,  with  the  sure  prospect  of  remaining  there 
forever,  — that  such  a  word  should  all  at  on<3e,  or  gradually,  come 
to  denote  such  a  slight  specific  act  as  sprinkHng  or  pouring, 
or  such  an  indefinite  act  as  washing,  or,  indeed,  '•'-any  reverent 
application  of  water,"  or  no  application  of  water,  but  simply 
"  controlling  influence,"  and  all  this,  too,  when  the  Greek  lan- 
guage had  abundance  of  words  to  denote  all  kinds  of  water  use  or 
apphcation,  and,  indeed,  all  kinds  of  influence  that  ever  need  be 
exerted,  is  about  as  wild  and  crazy  a  theory  as  ever  sprang  from 
a  distempered  brain.  Our  Saviom",  as  a  wise  teacher  and  lawgiver, 
would  not,  in  giving  a  law  to  His  church,  have  employed  a  word  of 
ambiguous,  doubtful  import,  such  as  John  Horsey  supposes  hap- 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  101 

tizo  to  be,  —  "an  equivocal,  open,  general  term,"  determining  this 
onl}',  "  that  water  should  be  applied  to  the  subject  in  some  form  or 
other  ;  "  or  such  as  Dale  supposes  it  to  be,  —  a  word  expressive  of 
controlling  influence  exerted  in  a  "  myriad  "  of  waj^s,  yet  without 
any  use  of  water.  When  our  Lord  said,  "  Take,  eat,"  He  used  a 
word  of  well-known  import,  which  everj'bod}-  could  understand. 
It  ha^  its  secondar}'  or  tropical  significations  ;  but  Christians  have 
been  wise  enough,  when  interpreting  Plis  command,  to  let  them 
alone.  Would  not  He  naturall}^  be  as  cautious  in  the  selection  of 
a  word,  when  enacting  the  law  which  had  respect  to  the  great 
initiatory  ordinance  of  Ilis  church  for  all  coming  time  ?  ^    Professor 


1  To  a  respected  member  of  another  denomination,  as  we  suppose,  cer- 
tainly an  ardent  admirer  of  Dr.  Dale  (personally  unknown  to  the  writer), 
who  proposed  a  newspaper  "friendly  discussion  to  involve  only  the  merits 
of  IMMEKSION,  proof  to  be  confined  to  the  New-Testament  record,^'  I  re- 
turned the  following,  in  substance,  as  a  part  of  my  answer:  "But  this 
limiting  of  the  inquiry  to  the  New  Testament  looks  to  me  a  little  suspicious. 
Our  Saviour,  in  the^  ordinance  of  the  Supper,  said,  '  Take,  eat.'  Now,  if 
there  was  any  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  word  phago,  '  to  eat,'  it, 
to  me,  would  look  very  strange  and  unphilosophical,  should  we,  in  our 
endeavor  to  ascertain  its  meaning,  confine  our  inquiries  to  Scripture  usage 
alone,  and  wholly  neglect  its  usage  '  through  all  Greek  literature.'  There 
is  a  reason  why  such  words  as  'faith,'  'repentance,'  'righteousness,' 
&c.,  should  be  used  in  another  and  higher  sense  in  the  ISTew  Testament 
than  what  they  have  in  Pagan,  classic  Greek  usage.  But  what  can  be  the 
reason  or  necessity  of  any  Scripture  change  of  the  literal,  proper,  and  usual 
meaning  and  action  of  such  specific  words  as  '  eat,'  or  '  drink,'  '  immerse,' 
'pour,'  or  'sprinkle,'  is  past  my  comprehension.  ...  Of  one  thing  I  am 
pretty  sure,  that  we  can  make  a  word  of  the  most  definite  specific  import 
mean  almost  any  thing  or  nothing,  as  our  prejudices  may  incline  us.  If  our 
Lord  had  been  of  English  or  American  birth,  and  had  given  His  great  commis- 
sion in  our  language,  and  had  plainly  said,  '  Go,  disciple  and  immerse,'  &c., 
it  would  be  comparatively  easy  for  peo}Dle  of  other  generations  and  other 
tongues  to  show,  if  they  were  disposed  to  do  so,  that  literal  physical  immer- 
sions in  water,  of  large  numbers,  and  at  all  times  of  the  year,  especially  in 
the  icy  climes  of  Northern  England  and  America,  would  be  exceediugly 
inconvenient,  if  not  altogether  impossible;  that  the  word  has  diverse  sig- 
nifications, and  figurative  or  secondary  meanings;  that  its  Scripture  use  was 
different  from  its  usage  in  profane  authors;  that,  as  employed  in  connection 
with  'ideal  elements,'  it  denotes,  not  a  i^hysical  act,  but  a  spiritual  effect; 
that  though  its  primitive  literal  import  may  have  been  to  intus^jose,  yet  it 
lost  its  oi'iginal  grand,  sole,  characteristic  idea,  and  acquired  that  of  control- 
ling influence  merely ;  that,  at  any  rate,  dipping  or  covering  over  is  not  its 


102  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

E.  A.  SoiDhocles,  himself  a  native  Greek,  and  author  of  a  Greek 
grammar,  lexicon,  &c.,  sa^'s,  under  the  word  haptizo^  "There  is 
no  e\4denee  that  the  New-Testament  writers  put  upon  this  verb 
meanings  not  recognized  b}^  the  Greeks."  And,  in  substantial 
agTeement  with  this.  Dale  himself  says,  "The  New  Testament 
introduces  baptizo  to  us  in  entirely  new  relations,  but  in  precisely 
the  same  construction  which  the  original  nature  of  the  word  re- 
quires ;  and  we  must  deduce  the  new  ideas  intended  to  be  conveyed 
by  a  strict  adherence  to  the  construction  and  to  the  force  of  indi- 
^idual  terms.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  it  is  not  the  word 
haptizo  which  is  used  in  a  novel  sense  in  the  New  Testament ;  but 
the  novelt}'  is  in  its  phraseological  combinations."  With  Dale,  the 
organic  phrase,  baptize  into.,  everywhere  (with  one  exception  in 
the  New  Testament,  Mark  i.  9)  denotes  "the  passing  of  an  ob- 
ject out  of  one  condition  into  another."  The  baptizing  of  a  per- 
son into  water  denotes  an  unlimited  intusposition  in  the  same,  and 
"involves  destruction  of  life."  In  the  New  Testament,  instead 
of  water,  a  new  ideal  element  is  introduced,  and  believers  are 
there  baptized,  not  into  (nor  even  in)  ivater,  but  into  repentance, 
into  remission  of  sins,  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  into  Jesus 
Christ,  into  His  death,  into,  one  bod}',  and  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  So,  also,  we  read 
of  a  baptism  into  Moses  and  into  the  name  of  Paul.  The  reader, 
then,  will  understand,  that,  in  Dr.  Dale's  "\'iew,  there  is  no  phj'sical 
?';afe9'-baptism  either  enjoined  or  recorded  as  a  Christian  rite  in 
the  New  Testament.  Chiistian  baptism  is  taken  wholly  out  of  the 
sphere  of  water,  mainty,  we  suppose,  for  these  reasons  :  First,  A 
li^dng  man  cannot  be  baptized  into  or  in  water  without  destruc- 
tion of  life :  even  a  baptism  vjitJi  water,  if  performed  in  a  literal 
way  and  manner,  produces  a  fatal  suffocation.  Second,  Instead  of 
water,  the  New  Testament  provides  other  and  "  ideal  "  elements. 
TJiird,  The  gospel  of  Christ  believed,  and  the  doctrines   of  re- 

exclusive  meaning;  that  its  action,  whatever  it  may  have  been,  is  wholly 
independent  of  'mode;'  and  that  at  least  one  mode  of  immersion  is  by 
sPEiATfLixG,  as  has  been  proved  by  an  anti-immersionist  named  Dale, 
whose  vernacular  tongue  is  known  to  have  been  English,  and  a  fragment 
of  whose  voluminous  works  has  reached  even  to  our  times.  So  says  the 
future  'Pedo-sprinJdei-.  Could  any  one  easily  convince  him  of  his 
error?" 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  103 

pentance  and  faith  received  into  the  heart  (doctrines  which  effect 
baptism,  and  hence  called  "  baptisms  of  doctrine  ") ,  will  baptize  in 
its  secondary-  and  regnant  sense  ;  that  is,  will  controllingly  injluence 
the  behever.-^  Thus,  in  his  "  Christie  Baptism,"  pp.  396,  397,  he 
explicitly  declares  that  "belief  can  baptize,"  and  that  "  kepent- 
ANCE  baptizes  into  the  remission  of  sins."  On  this  theorj'  and 
interpretation,  our  Saviour  is  made  to  say,  "He  that  beheveth, 
and  is  (thereby)  baptized,  shall  be  saved;"  and  Peter's  exhor- 

1  The  "  baptisms  of  doctrine"  spolien  of  in  Heb.  vi.  2,  if  we  accept  this 
rendering,  were  probably  so  designated  from  tlie  fact  ttiat  tliey  were 
accompanied  with  instruction,  as  in  the  commission,  "  Disciple,  baptize, 
teach,"  and  in  the  catechnmenate  practice  of  the  early  church  until  it  was 
supplanted  by  infant-baptism.  Most  commentators,  however,  reverse  the 
order  of  the  words,  and  read,  as  in  our  version,  "the  doctrine  of  "  (or  con- 
cerning) "  baptisms,"  aijd  make  these  refer  to  external  and  to  spiritual  bai> 
tisms,  or  to  Jewish,  Johannic,  and  Christian,  or  regard  the  plural  as  simply 
used  for  the  singular.  Chrystal,  we  perceive,  refers  the  plural  form  to  the 
three  immersions  of  the  one  baptismal  rite.  Winer,  it  is  true,  inclines  to 
the  rendering,  "baptisms  of  doctrine;"  making  these  the  object  or  end  of 
Christian  instruction,  "  instruction-baptisms,"  in  contrast  with  the  legal  and 
traditional  lustrations  of  the  Jews,  the  "  diverse  baptisms"  of  the  law,  De 
Wette,  also,  in  his  Heilige  Schrift,  gives  " Lehr-Taufen,"  or  "baptisms  of 
doctrine;"  though  in  his  Handbuch  he  makes  the  two  words,  "baptisms" 
and  "  doctrine,"  grammatically  independent  of  each  other,  as  in  Luther's  ver- 
sion (thus  making  seven  fundamental  "principles,"  instead  of  "six"),  and 
comments  thus:  "Upon  these  two  things  (repentance  and  faith)  follows,  in 
the  gospel  order  of  salvation,  («)  baptism,  which  was  connected  (6)  with 
instruction  .  .  .  and  (c)  with  imposition  of  hands."  He,  however,  acknowl- 
edges that  the  other  rendering,  baptisms  of  doctrine,  has  nearly  equal  weight. 
"That  baptismos,"  he  says,  "elsewhere  is  not  used  of  Christian  baptism 
(though  used  of  the  Johannic  by  Josephus),  presents  but  a  slight  difficulty: 
since  the  usual  baptisma  does  not  occur  in  this  author,  he  can  follow 
another  usage..  The  plural,  perhaps,  can  be  referred  to  the  triple  immersion 
(Can.  Apos.,  '  three  baptisms  of  one  initiation  '),  if  not  with  Theodoret  and 
Beza,  to  the  multitude  of  the  baptized,  and  of  baptismal  acts."  In  opposi- 
tion to  De  Wette  and  to  Winer  (who,  however,  gives  his  opinion  hesitatingly), 
Alford,  Lange,  Ebrard,  Liinemann,  and  Bleek  (perhaps  the  ablest  com- 
mentator on  this  epistle)  prefer  the  rendering  of  our  version,  "  the  doc- 
trine of  baptisms,"  and  supply  the  word  "doctrine"  before  each  of  the 
following  phrases,  —  "of  the  laying  on  of  hands,"  "of  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead,"  and  "of  eternal  jadgment." 

But  how  senseless  to  carry  back  our  disputes  to  apostolic  times,  and 
make  this  "  doctrine  of  baptisms  "  refer  to  the  so-called  different  "modes  " 
of  baptism  I 


104  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

tation,  "  Repent  and  be  baptized,"  is  changed  into  "  Repent,  and 
be  (therebj-)  baptized."  In  opposition  to  this  interpretation,  we 
remark,  that,  when  we  are  advised  or  bidden  to  do  this  thing 
and  that,  our  inference  naturally  is,  that  different  specific  acts 
are  requked  of  us.  Should,  however,  the  this  and  that  be  iden- 
tical in  meaning,  we  should  naturally  suppose  that  this  identity 
would  be  indicated  by  a  "that  is,"  or  a  "thereby."  So,  when 
our  Lord  bids  His  disciples  to  go,  make  disciples,  baptizing  and 
teaching  them,  the  language  naturally  implies  that  "  discipling," 
"  baptizing,"  and  "  teaching  "  are  different  acts.  Had  He  meant 
otherwise,  he  would  have  said,  as  Dale  makes  Him  sa}',  "  Go,  disci- 
ple, and  thereby  '  controUingly  influence,'  aU  the  nations."  But 
this  is  evidently  both  an  adding  to  and  a  taking  from  the  word  of 
God.  Our  author  may  tell  us  that  we  add  the  words,  "  in  water ;  " 
but  these,  as  being  the  most  usual,  not  to  say  the  most  essential, 
requisites  of  baptizo,  are  naturally  and  necessarily  understood. 
Thus  Dr.  Dale  finds  "water  "  in  the  "  baptizings  from  the  mar- 
ket," in  the  "baptizings  of  cups,  pots,  brazen  vessels,  and 
couches,"  in  the  baptism  of  the  Samaritan  multitudes,  and  in 
many  other  and  "  diverse  baptisms  "  in  the  New  Testament,  where 
no  water  is  mentioned. 

Our  author  does,  as  we  have  seen,  speak  of  a  water-rite  which 
sometimes  accompanied  baptism,  and  which  he  improperly  calls 
ritual  baptism,  of  which  he  recognizes  eight  examples  in  apostolic 
history.  The  mention  of  water  occurs  in  two  instances ;  to  wit, 
in  the  baptizing  of  the  eunuch,  and  in  that  of  Cornelius  (doubtless) 
and  the  other  Gentiles,  who,  contrary  to  the  usual  order  of  events, 
had  received  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  prior  to  their  ritual 
baptism  and  the  imposition  of  hands  (Acts  viii.  38,  x.  47).  In 
the  baptism  of  the  Samaritans  (Acts  viii.  12,  13),-:- though  the 
records  do  not  state  that  Philip  baptized  them,  but  onty  that  they 
were  baptized,  —  while  no  mention  is  here  made  of  water,  a  water- 
rite  is  3^et  recognized  by  Dr.  Dale,  not  so  much  from  the  fact  that 
"women"  were  there  baptized,  as  that  one  of  the  subjects  was 
Simon  Magus,  whose  baptism  could  not  well  have  been  that  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  nor  that  even  of  controlling  influence,  but  might 
have  lasted  long  enough  for,  and  amounted  to  as  much  as,  a  mere 
"dip  into  water;"  which  Dr.  Dale  informs  us  is  all  that  "the 
Christian  baptisma,  according  to  the  theor^^,"  amounts  to!     The 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  105 

re-baptism  of  John's  disciples  (Acts  xix.  5) ,  and  the  baptism  by 
Paul  of  Crispus  and  Gains,  and  of  Stephanas  and  his  household, 
the  baptism  of  Lydia  and  her  household,  and  of  the  jailer  "  and  all 
his,"  are  claimed  as  ritual.  But  why  a  ritual  baptism  is  denied  to 
the  Pentecostal  converts,  and  predicated  of  the  last  two  household 
baptisms,  and,  indeed,  of  some  others  mentioned,  is  difficult  to 
perceive,  unless,  indeed,  it  be  taken  for  granted  that  these  house- 
holds contained  not  only  infants,  but  adult  unbelievers^  who  might 
have  been  ritually  baptized,  but  could  not  have  received  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Spirit,  or  that  of  "  controlling  influence."  Certainly 
an  "  ideal  element"  could  be  as  easily  furnished  b}^  imagination 
for  these  so-called  ritual  baptisms  as  the  words  ' '  in  water ; ' ' 
and  as  an  ideal  element,  such  as  "rato  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,"  does  not  with  om-  author  preclude  a  "  ritual  baptism  "  in 
Acts  viii.  16,  xix.  5,  so  it  need  not  preclude  a  ritual  baptism 
from  the  "  gi-eat  commission,"  nor  withhold  it  from  the  converts 
at  Pentecost.  Even  Professor  J.  H.  Godwin,  who  holds,  with  Dr. 
Dale,  that  haptizo  expresses  "the  efl'ect,  and  not  the  mode,  of 
action,"  and  who  sees  in  the  baptism  of  our  Lord's  commission  only 
a  spiritual  purifj^ng,  a  baptism  "  of  the  mind,  not  of  the  body," 
yet  acknowledges  that  the  Pentecostal  converts,  in  obedience  to 
Peter's  exhortation  ("  Repent,  and  be  baptized,  each  one  of  3'ou  ") , 
were  "  baptized  by  water."  On  Dr.  Dale's  theory-,  the}'  must  seem- 
ingly have  been  at  a  loss  to  know  how,  after  their  repentance,  they 
were  to  be  controllingly  influenced.  He  tells  us,  however,  that 
they  were  baptized  hy  or  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ' '  through  repentance 
and  faith."  As,  after  their  repentance-baptism  b}^  the  Holj^  Ghost, 
they  were,  according  to  Peter's  assurance,  to  "  receive  the  gift  of 
the  H0I3'  Spirit,"  it  follows,  that,  if  they  received  no  water-baptism, 
they  were,  as  Dr.  Dale  himself  acknowledges,  doubly  baptized  by 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  the  one  baptism  being  regenerative,  and  the 
other  conferring  miraculous  endowments.  He  concedes,  however, 
the  possibility  that  the}^  ma}^  have  been  rituall}-  baptized  ' '  some 
other  day."  But,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is  only  in  a  loose  wa}'  that 
any  of  Dale's  water-rite  examples  can  be  called  ritual  baptisms. 
He  himself  has  not  the  temerit}'  to  call  them  t(;a/e?--baptisms.  In 
his  view,  there  are  no  ritual  water-baptisms,  that  is,  drowning 
baptisms,  in  the  New  Testament.  So  far  as  it  relates  to  a  ritual 
physical  baptism.  Dr.  Dale   is   neither  Baptist   nor  Pedobaptist, 


106  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

nor  any  part  or  kind  of  a  Baptist,  unless  it  be  of  the  Jcata-hsqytistio 
sort :  for  with  him  a  physical  baptism  "  with  "  water  is  drowning, 
and  a  destruction  of  life ;  and  it  is  a  practising  of  virtual  decep- 
tion on  his  part  to  talk  of  "  ritual  baptisms  "  (ritual  drownings)  in 
the  New  Testament,  or  for  him  to  imply  that  he  holds  to  a  ritual 
baptism.  By  his  influence  theory,  every  ritual  water-baptism  is 
influenced  out  of  and  away  from  the  New  Testament,  and  is  abso- 
lutely and  forever  discarded.  He  saj^s,  "The  Scriptures  do  not 
saj^  one  word  about  either  a  baptism  or  a  dipping  into  water." 
"The  presence  of  water,  actual  or  imaginary,  is  unnecessary  to 
a  baptism."  "  Whenever  a  baptism  is  stated  without  any  explana- 
torj'  adjunct,  there  is  no,  of  course,  calling  on  tuater  to  fill  the 
deficiency."  "The  idea  of  a  complementary  relation  between 
baptizo  and  water  is  an  absolute  and  impracticable  error." 
"There  is  no  such  thing  in  Scripture  as  a  ph^^sical  baptism." 
"  A  ritual  baptism  by  water  was  not  instituted  in  the  commission, 
nor  at  any  other  time,  by  formal  and  public  announcement."  "The 
water  in  ritual  baptism  no  more  depends  for  its  manner  of  use  on 
baptizo  than  does  the  face  depend  for  its  reflection  from  a  mirror ; 
upon  that  mirror  being  in  its  form  a  circle,  an  oblong,  or  a 
square.  These  two  things  [baptizo  and  the  manner  of  using  the 
water]  no  more  stand  in  Scripture  conjoined  with  each  other  by 
grammatical  or  logical  relation  than  do  the  earth  and  the  moon 
stand  in  creation  conjoined  b}' a  suspension-bridge."  "There  is 
no  phj'sical  use  of  baptizo  in  the  ministry  of  John."  "  This  word 
has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  originating  the  presence,  or  in 
controlling  the  use,  of  the  water  in  the  rite  connected  with  John's 
ministry."  "  The  verb  baptizo  and  the  noun  baptisma,  as  used 
in  the  history  of  John's  baptism,  have  no  more  to  do  with  the 
quantity  or  the  manner  of  using  the  water  employed  in  his  sym- 
bol rite  than  has  the  multiplication-table  to  do  with  the  amount 
or  the  manner  of  using  Rothschild's  wealth.  Let  these  words 
mean  what  they  ma}^,  they  have  no  more  control  in  the  relations 
in  which  the}-  stand  over  the  use  of  the  water  than  a  sleeping 
infant  has  over  the  earth's  diurnal  revolution."  "It  [baptizo'] 
has  no  more  to  do  with  regulating  the  use  of  the  water  than  the 
child  unborn."  "  The  idea  that  baptizo  has  an}'  complementary 
relation  with  water  in  the  New  Testament,  or  has  an}^  concern  in 
the  mode  of  using  the  water  in  ritual  baptism,  is  foundationless." 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  107 

'•'•  Baptizo  has  no  control  over  loafer  in  the  New  Testament  in  a 
single  instance.^'  If  this  be  so,  tlieu  we  may  justty  conclude,  for 
one  tiling,  that  any  attempt  to  determine  the  mode  of  baptism 
from  the  use  of  water  in  the  New  Testament  is  as  futile  as 
would  be  the  attempt  to  determine  it  from  the  phases  of  the 
moon.  A  sweeping  controlling-influence  theor}' ,  indeed,  is  this  ! 
"Why  was  it  ever  invented  ?  and  for  what  have  our  friends  lauded 
it  to  the  skies?  That  cause,  methinks,  must  be  truly  desperate 
which  requires  such  a  "theory"  as  this  to  uphold  it.  It  seems 
to  me  that  what  Carson  said  of  Mr.  Ewing  and  his  ' '  jpop-theory ' ' 
can  well  be  applied  to  Dr.  Dale:  "In  this  theory' of  Mr.  [Dale] 
we  have  the  strongest  evidence  that  our  opponents  are  not  them- 
selves satisfied  with  any  mode  of  defence  hitherto  devised.  We 
have  Mr.  [Dale's]  own  virtual  acknowledgment  that  the  ground 
on  which  pouring  (or  sprinlvling)  has  till  his  time  been  held  for 
baptism  is  not  firm.  Can  there  be  a  more  certain  sign  that  he 
himself  was  dissatisfied  with  the  usual  view  of  the  subject  than 
his  having  recourse  to  so  extravagant  a  theory  ?  If  he  has  taken 
to  sea  in  this  bark  of  bulrushes,  must  he  not  have  considered 
the  ship  which  he  left  as  being  in  the  ver}^  act  of  sinking  ?  I  call 
on  the  unlearned  Christian  to  consider  this  circumstance.  What 
must  be  the  necessities  of  a  cause  that  requires  such  a  method  of 
defence  ?  ' ' 

We  have  sometimes  queried  exactl}^  what,  on  this  theorj-,  one 
person  did  to  another  when  he  baptized  him.  Take  the  case  of 
Philip  and  the  eunuch.  Our  friends  will  hardly  allow  that  there  was 
water  enough  in  the  desert  or  wilderness  for  the  evangelist  to  drown 
the  Ethiopian  treasui-er,  even  if  they  had  both  been  so  disposed. 
On  the  other  hand.  Dale  will  allow  that  the  eunuch,  before  his 
ritual  baptism,  had  already'  been  controUingly  influenced  b}^  the 
"  good  news  "  of  an  atoning  Saviour  ;  that  he  had  alread3-  received 
spiritual  baptism ;  that  his  soul  already'  had  been  baptized  into 
Christ.  But  "  the}'  went  down  both  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and 
the  eunuch  ;  and  he  haptized  him."  Again  we  ask.  What  did  Philip 
do?  Dale  tells  us,  that,  with  his  hand,  he  poured  a  little  water  on 
the  eunuch's  head.  Ver}'  well ;  but,  if  assertions  amount  to  any 
thing,  this  use  of  water  had  "nothing  whatever"  to  do  with 
haptizo^  or  the  act  of  baptizing.  Again :  What  did  Philip  do?  "I 
pause  for  a  repl}-." 


108  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

And  here  we  may  properly  inquire,  What  has  this  "influence 
theory"  done  with  our  Lord's  last  command,  "Go,  therefore, 
disciple  all  the  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  whatever  I  commanded  you  "  ?  There  are,  as  it  seems  to 
me,  two  or  three  points  bearing  on  the  interpretation  of  this  pas- 
sage, which  are  so  self-evidentlj'  true  that  their  correctness  may  be 
taken  for  granted.  One  is,  that,  if  any  ritual  baptism  is  to  be 
inferred  from  or  connected  with  this  commission,  it  must  be  found 
in  the  word  "baptizing;"  another  is,  that  if  one  of  the  two 
participles,  "baptizing"  and  "teaching,"  denotes  a  particular 
specific  work  or  action  connected  with,  yet  different  from,  the 
making  of  disciples,  the  same  holds  true  of  the  other ;  and  a  third 
is,  that  both  participles  are  equally  related  to  the  preceding  verb 
"disciple."  Every  one  of  these  points  is  set  at  nought  by  Dr. 
Dale's  interpretation,  and  a  more  jumbled  up  and  confused  speci- 
men of  hermeneutics  we  have  rarely  seen.  On  p.  426  of  his 
"Christie  Baptism"  he  says,  "  A  ritual  baptism  by  water  was  not 
instituted  in  the  commission,  nor  at  any  other  time,  bj^  formal  and 
pubhc  announcement."  This  alone  would  seem  to  be  enough  to 
set  aside  the  ordinance  altogether.  But,  strange  to  say,  he  in- 
sinuates a  ritual  baptism  into  the  discipUng  to  Christ,  deriving  it 
not  at  all  from  "  baptizing,"  but  in  part  from  the  "  all  things  which 
I  have  commanded  you  "  (though  no  such  command,  according  to 
Dale,  is  known  to  have  been  given),  and  in  part  from  Christ's  own 
example  of  rituallj'  baptizing  through  His  disciples  (John  iii.  22, 
iv.  1,  2)  ;  though  no  direct  mention  is  made  of  "  water  "  in  connec- 
tion with  Christ's  baptizing,  while  the  people  were  baptized  doubt- 
less into  some  "ideal  element."  Had  the  commission  run  thus, 
"  Go,  disciple  all  the  nations,  sprinkling  them  into  the  name,"  &c., 
even  Dr.  Dale,  we  trow,  would  have  made  this  "sprinkling"  to 
have  had  some  reference  to  the  Christian  rite.  To  be  sprinkled 
into  a  name  denotes,  indeed,  but  an  insignificant  act  and  effect ; 
and  we  can  think  of  but  one  thing  which  could  save  it  to  the 
"  controlhng-influence "  theor}*.  Like  baptism,  "no  sprinkling 
is  self-ending;"  and  the  act  of  sprinkling,  happily,  could  be 
continued  on  during  the  process  of  "  teaching  "  the  disciples  ;  and 
if  continued  during  their  whole  lives,  as  its  "unlimited  continu- 
ance" demands,  it  would  doubtless  effect  a  considerable  degree 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  109 

of  influence  !  In  determining  the  relation  of  ' '  baptizing  ' '  and 
"  teaching  "  to  the  verb  "  disciple,"  Dr.  Dale  appears  to  us  to  be 
wholly  arbitrary.  Dr.  Halley,  Alexander  Campbell,  and  many 
others,  make  the  two  participles  explanatory  of  the  verb's  action : 
in  other  words,  they  would  disciple  by  baptizing  and  teaching 
whomsoever  thej^  could,  just  as  they  would  "  cleanse  a  floor  "  (by) 
"washing  it."  There  is,  at  first  sight,  some  plausibility  in  this 
view,  and  the  reading  baptisantes,  of  manuscripts  B.  and  D.,  espe- 
cially favors  it ;  but  Dr.  Dale  accepts  it  only  in  part.  He  is  willing 
to  disciple  by  teaching,  but  not  by  baptizing.  The  making  of  this 
exception  is  well,  we  think,  for  those  who  would  fulfil  the  Saviour's 
command  ;  for  even  an  apostle  who  would  disciple  men  by  control- 
lingly  influencing  them  could  not  tell  which  of  ' '  ten  thousand  ' ' 
diflferent  methods  of  influencing  controllingly  he  should  employ. 
Our  author,  therefore,  makes  the  "  baptizing"  to  be  no  separate 
action  from  that  of  discipling,  no  means  for  effecting  disciple- 
ship,  no  consequent  upon  discipling,  but  makes  it  to  be  included 
in  discipling;  while  "teaching,"  on  the  other  hand,  is  regarded 
as  a  separate  action,  and  as  a  means  of  discipling.  Hence  the 
commission,  according  to  his  interpretation,  is  "  disciple  (and 
thereb}^  baptize)  the  nations  6^/ teaching  them,"  &c.  This  "real 
baptism,"  efi'ected  so  far  as  man  can  do  it  by  discipling,  —  i.e.,  "  by 
preaching  and  teaching,"  -*-is  a  baptism  "  into  the  absolute  ti'iune 
God  for  all  eternity  ;  "  "  the  last  consummating  baptism  of  redemp- 
tion ; "  "a  baptism  forever.,  even  for  evek  and  ever.  ' '  The  repent- 
ance-baptism of  John,  and  the  baptism  "  into  the  name  of  Christ  " 
and  "  into  Christ,"  could  be  s3axibolized  by  a  water-rite  ;  but  this 
baptism  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  H0I3'  Spirit,  this 
"full  subjection  to  "  the  Trinity,  is  not  to  be  sjmibolized.  "  The 
association  of  this  baptism  (into  the  name  of  the  Trinity)  with  a 
ritual  ordinance  is  wholly  wanting  in  scriptural  authority,  whether 
it  be  sought  in  command  or  practice."  The  so-called  ritual  baptism 
which  Dr.  Dale,  without  the  authority  of  anj-  "  formal  and  public 
announcement,"  or  command  of  our  Lord,  interprets  into  the  com- 
mission, is  properly  a  baptism,  not  into  the  name  of  the  Trinit}*, 
but  "into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  the  "crucified  Re- 
deemer." Dr.  Dale  still  uses  the  full  Trinitarian,  not  the  "ori- 
ginal formula,"  in  his  ritual  baptism  of  "  sinners,"  though  he  does 
so  in  known  and  confessed  contradiction  to  apostolic  precept  and 


110  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

example  and  to  right  reason  (for  ' '  there  is  no  blood  in  the  Son 
as  the  second  person  of  the  Trinit}'  ")  ;  but  he  justifies  his  practice 
mainly  on  the  ground  of  its  supposed  accordance  with  the  will  of 
God  as  indicated  by  long-established  ecclesiastical  usage.  We 
beUeve  that  this  interpretation  of  the  commission,  taken  as  a  whole, 
is  original  with  Dr.  Dale,  and  that  no  one  will  ever  arise  to  dispute 
his  claim  to  sole  ownership. 

But  how  does  this  interpretation  of  the  commission  bear  on  the 
question  of  m/ani-baptism  ?  Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  om' 
author's  averment  that  the  nations  are  to  be  discipled,  and  thus 
baptized,  "  hy  preaching  and  teaching."  This  "  discipling  to 
Christ  hy  being  taught  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  He  has 
commanded  will ' '  inevitabl}'  debar  infants  from  any  ritual  baptism 
on  the  ground  of  the  commission.  Yet  Dr.  Dale  derives  infant- 
baptism  from  the  commission  b}"  the  following  reasoning :  Infants 
compose  a  large  and  integral  part  of  the  nations.  But  the  nations, 
and  hence  infants,  are  to  be  discipled,  and  thus  baptized.  But  how  ? 
By  being  taught  to  observe  all  the  Saviour's  commands?  This  is 
impossible.  This  discipling  method,  therefore,  must  be  modified  ; 
otherwise  infant  -  baptism  is  unauthorized,  and  the  commission 
itself  is  destroj'ed.  •  Our  author  noio  tells  that  "  it  is  not  true  that 
preaching  and  teaching  are  the  onl}^  means  for  discipling  to 
Christ."  Na}^  he  even  denies  that  '"teaching"  is  a  means  for 
discipling.  He  says,  "The  'teaching'  is  clearly  to  be  addressed 
to  '  them '  who  are  "  ("by  the  Holy  Ghost ")  '-'■already  discipled." 
Thus,  after  all,  "  teaching  "  is  a  consequent  upon  discipling  ;  while 
"  baptizing,"  on  the  other  hand,  remains  included  in  it.  We  will 
not  stop  to  reconcile  all  these  statements,  but  will  give  our  author's 
exceedingly  foggj'  syllogism  (found  in  "  Christie  Baptism,"  p.  447) 
touching  this  matter :  "To  exclude  infants  from  the  command  ' to 
disciple  the.  nations  '  is  to  annul  that  command.  But  this  command 
must  stand :  therefore  '  disciple '  must  represent  either  a  princi- 
pal, not  exclusive,  means  only,  or  it  must  have  a  breadth  of  mean- 
ing wliich  ^ill  embrace  .  .  .  little  childi'en."  Plow  much  more 
logical  and  simple  is  the  intei'pretation  of  J.  Winkler,  "  an  old 
defender  of  infant-baptism,"  who  asserts  that  "the  Lord  pre- 
scribes two  means  for  the  clisciphng,  — the  baptizing  in  respect  to 
the  little  ones,  the  teaching  in  respect  to  adults  "  !  Who  does  not 
see  that  the  commission  with  the  "  breadth  of  meanina: "  advocated 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  Ill 

by  Dr.  Dale  will  easily  embrace  as  proper  subjects  of  baptism  all 
classes  of  men  (thieves,  clruiilcards,  profligates,  &c.)  which  go  to 
make  up  "  all  the  nations"  of  earth?  and  who  does  not  perceive 
that  our  Saviour's  "  great  command  "  is  ver}'  conti'oUingl}",  not  to 
say  unduly,  influenced  hy  om'  author's  "influence  theory"  of 
baptism  ? 

There  are  certain  objections  and  difficulties  supposed  by  some  to 
militate  against  the  idea  of  baptism  as  being  always  an  immersion, 
—  such,  for  example,  as  that  ineffabl}'  foolish  whim  of  "  inevitable 
drowning,"  or  the  scarcely  less  fanciful  notion  of  "  scarcity  of 
water,"  or  the  alleged  impossibility'  of  John's  immersing  the  mul- 
titudes who  flocked  to  his  baptism,  or  of  the  apostles  immersing 
the  "  about  three  thousand  "  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  as  also  of 
immersing  couches,  &c., — which  objections  we,  as  Baptists,  are 
specially  obUgated  to  consider.  .But  the  moral  objection  of  the 
incongruity  of  incorporating  a  water-rite  in  a  spiritual  religion, 
making  it  also  co-ordinate  with  faith  and  repentance,  and  in  some 
aspects  seeminglj' indispensable,  to  salvation, — this  is  for  others 
to  consider  as  well  as  ourselves.  And  Dr.  Dale's  solemn,  almost 
anathematic  asseveration,  that  "  an}' preacher  who  cannot  preach 
the  faithfully-interpreted  preaching  of  Peter ' '  (his  preaching  of 
?'e29e'/itonce-baptism,  as  interpreted  by  Dale),  "  but  will  substitute 
for  it,  be  dipped  in  water,  or  he  ritually  baptized  in  any  form.,  ma}- 
some  da}'  understand  that  it  would  have  been  better  for  him  had 
his  tongue  cleaved  to  the  roof  of  his  mouth  than  that  it  should 
ever  have  uttered  such  things,"  is  for  his  denominational  friends  to 
ponder  upon  as  well  as  burs. 

The  rite  of  Christian  baptism,  if  it  be  a  rite,  is  confessedly  the 
chief  ordinance  of  the  gospel.  Nowhere  does  the  Saviour  assert, 
"He  that  believes  and  partakes  of  my  Supper  shall  be  saved." 
Nor  does  Peter  ever  urge  inquiring  sinners  to  "  repent,  and 
receive  the  H0I3'  Communion  upon  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  unto 
remission  of  sins."  Nowhere  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
declared  to  be,  as  is  the  "doctrine  of  baptisms,"  a  foundation 
principle  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  Before,  then,  we  accept  a 
"  thcor}' "  which  influences  this  great  ordinance  of  Christ  out 
of  the  New  Testament,  we  may  well  pause,  and  meanwhile  lis- 
ten to  a  few  thoughtful  words  from  Ilenr}-  Alford's  comments  on 
"the  great  commission"   (Matt,  xxviii.  19):  "As  regards  the 


112  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

command  itself  (baptizontes) ,  no  unprejudiced  reader  can  doubt 
that  it  regards  the  outioard  rite  of  baptism  so  well  known  in  this 
gospel  as  having  been  practised  by  John,  and  received  by  the 
Lord  himself.  And  thus  it  was  immediately,  and  has  been  ever 
since,  understood  b}'  the  church.  As  regards  all  attempts  to  ex- 
plain away  this  sense,  we  may  saj^,  —  even  setting  aside  the  testi- 
mony furnished  by  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  —  that  it  is  in  the 
highest  degree  improbable  that  our  Lord  should  have  given,  at  a 
time  when  He  was  summing  up  the  duties  of  His  church  in  such 
weighty  words,  a  command  couched  in  figurative  or  ambiguous 
language  ;  one  which  He  must  have  known  would  be  interpreted  by 
His  disciples,  now  long  accustomed  to  the  rite  and  its  name,  other- 
wise than  He  intended  it."  It  would  appear  that  this  distin- 
guished commentator  was  utterly  ignorant  of  the  now  asserted 
fact,  that  the  water-rite  of  John  was  not  a  baptism ! 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  113 


CHAPTER  XV. 

BAPTIZO   AND   THE   PREPOSITIONS.  —  "IDEAL   ELEMENTS." 
"I  indeed  baptize  you  in  water  into  repentance^  — Matt.  ill.  11. 

OUR  author,  as  we  have  seen,  has  converted  "repentance," 
"  remission  of  sins,"  "  Moses,"  "  name  of  Paul,"  "  name  of 
Christ,"  "  His  death,"  "  one  bodj',"  &c.,  into  "  a  pool  of  water," 
to  use  his  own  style  of  expression,  and  has  removed  baptizo  from 
aU  connection  with  water  in  the  New  Testament.  "  The  state- 
ment," saj'S  Dr.  Dale,  "  ma}'  be  made  without  reserve,  that,  in  the 
New  Testament,  neither  baptizo^  baptistes^  nor  baptisma,  is  ever  used 
to  introduce  an  object  into  water,  or  to  express  the  condition  of 
being  in  water."  "The  new  word  baptisma"  (not  occurring  in 
the  Classics  or  Josephus)  ' '  has  never  any  complementary  rela- 
tion with  water."  ^'■Baptistes  in  religion  has  nothing  to  dO' 
with  water  in  any  form  Or  measure."  "  The  verb  bap)tizo  has  no- 
more  to  do  with  the  sjTiibol  water  .  .  .  than  Chang  Eng  of  the 
Celestial  Empire  has  to  do  with  the  succession  to  the  presidency 
over  this  '  Flowery  Kingdom '  of  America."  "  The  word  baptizo ■ 
as  used  in  Scripture  has  no  more  control  over  or  connection  with 
the  manner  of  using  water  than  a  broken  arm  has  control  over  or 
connection  with  the  movement  of  the  solar  system."  But,  if  bap- 
tizo is  thus  taken  wholly  from  its  native  and  natural  element,  it  is 
unaccountably  strange  that  its  name  and  act  should  still  be  men- 
tioned so  often  (and  so  carelesslj',  too,  we  must  thinli,  if  we  believe 
in  its  natural  drowwmg' propensity')  with  "water,"  "the  water," 
"  a  certain  water,"  "  much  water,"  "  the  Jordan,"  and."  the  River 
Jordan  ;  "  or  that  John  could  say,  "  Therefore  I  come  baptizing  in 
water,"  and  mentioning  no  "ideal"  element.  Dr.  Dale  says,  if 
our  (Baptist)  theoiy  be  true,  Paul's  inquiry  of  John's  disciple* 


114  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

should  mean,  "  Into  what  water  (fresh  or  salt,  river  or  spring, 
hot  or  cold)  were  3'ou  baptized  ? ' '  On  the  supposition  of  gi-eat 
irregularity  in  their  baptism,  the  inquirj'  possibly-  might  be,  "Into 
what  —  water,  or  milk,  or  oil,  or  wine — were  jou  baptized?" 
But  we  suppose  the  phj'sical  element  of  baptism  could  be  taken  for 
granted,  and  that  any  inquiry  into  that  matter  would  be  about  as 
sensible  as  to  ask  them  what  element  thej'  breathed.  Baptizo  has 
alwaj's  had  an  afSnitj'  for  water  as  for  its  native  element.  Take 
the  strictly  classic  examples  as  given  b}^  Dr.  Dale.  Out  of  one 
hundred  and  twelve  such  examples  he  gives  sixty-one  of  physical 
iutusposition  (without,  with,  and  for  influence) ,  and  sis  of  "  rhe- 
torical figure,"  where  "iniluence"  is  hkened  to  an  overflowing, 
ingulfing  wave,  &c.  Of  these  sixt3'-seven  examples,  over  fifty 
have  reference,  expressed  or  understood,  to  the  element  of  water  ; 
and  the  same  ratio  would  doubtless  hold  true  in  the  wi'itings  of 
Josephus. 

But  we  see  no  necessity,  and  feel  no  desire,  to  discuss  the  ques- 
tion, whether  there  be  a  baptismal  water-rite  enjoined  in  the  Xew 
Testament.  The  whole  church  of  Christ,  with  comparatively'  a 
few  individual  exceptions,  haxe  taken  the  affirmative  of  this  ques- 
tion for  granted.  We  shall,  therefore,  pass  on  to  consider  the 
force  of  the  prepositions  eis,  en,  and  ek  (into,  in.  and  out  of),  as 
used  in  connection  with  baptizo.  And  we  would  here  remark,  that 
the  grammatical  construction  of  baptizo  in  the  New  Testament,  so 
far  as  the  prepositions  are  concerned,  is  exactly  the  same  as  that 
in  the  Classics,  save  that  eis  (into)  does  not  occur  with  such  rela- 
tive frequency'  as  in  classic  Greek.  The  expression  '•'•into  the 
Jordan"  occurs  once;  "m  the  Eiver  Jordan,"  once;  "  i?i  the 
Jordan,"  once;  "  m  water,"  according  to  our  received  text,  five 
times    (though   Mark   i.    8   is   very   doubtful);^    "m   the   Holy 


1  "  As  to  the  two  e?i's  in  Mark  i.  8.  1.  The  first  is  omitted,  the  second 
Is  retained,  by  Tischexdohf  in  his  last  critical  edition,  by  Volkmae,  and 
-by  Weiss  in  his  Das  Marcusevaugelium  (Berlin,  1ST-.),  who  has  treated 
questions  of  textual  criticism  with  much  care  and  ability.  The  second  en 
"has  much  less  authority  for  its  omission  than  the  first.  Tischendorf  and 
Weiss  thinlv  it  was  omitted  by  B.  L.  to  make  the  construction  of  2:)7ieumati 
conforai  to  that  of  hudati.  2.  Both  en's  are  bracketed  as  doubtful  by  Lach- 
MAjsrx  and  Teegelles  :  the  latter,  if  he  had  known  that  the  Codex  Sinaiti- 
cus  was  against  the  first,  would  probably  have  omitted  it.     3.  Both  are 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  115 

Spirit,"  six  times;  while  "water,"  without  a  preposition  in  tlie 
original,  and  always  as  contrasted  Avith  "m  the  H0I3'  Spirit," 
occurs  three  times  at  least,  and ,  probabl}'  four;  and  "fire,"  also 
without  a  preposition,  3'et  closely  connected  with  and  apparent!}' 
explanatory  of  "  wi  the  Holy' Spirit,"  occurs  twice;  thus  making 
at  least  twelve  examples  of  baptizing  ^'^^,  and  one  of  baptizing  into, 
a  commonly  supposed  element.  This  owe.  example  we  shall  soon 
consider. 

But,  before  entering  upon  this  investigation,  we  would  briefly 
notice  the  force  of  eis  (into)  in  connection  with  the  so-called 
"  ideal  elements  "  in  such  phrases  as  "  baptized  into  repentance," 
"into  Moses,"  "into  the  name  of  Paul,"  "into  Christ,"  &c. 
The  "  baptism  of  repentance  "  (or  "  baptize  into  repentance  ") 
is  peculiarly  a  Joliannic  expression.  The  Baptist  plainly  required 
of  his  fellow-countrj'men  repentance,  and  an  open  confession  of 
sins,  before  receiving  an}'  to  his  baptism  ;  and  he  refused  to  bap- 
tize those  who  brought  not  forth  "  fruits  worth}'  of  repentance." 
Since,  therefore,  his  baptism  of  repentance  was  invariably  preceded 
b}'  repentance,  it  follows  that  his  baptizing  eis  (into)  repentance 
cannot  mean  baptizing  them  for,  in  order  to,  or  into ;  that  is,  to 
secure  repentance  as  an  object,  or  to  put  them,  as  for  the  first  time, 
into  a  state  of  repentance.  Tyndale  renders  it,  "I  baptize  you  in 
water  in  toTcen  of  repentance."  "  The  expression,  ^  I  baptize  3'ou 
in  water  into  repentance,'  means,"  says  Professor  Hermann  Cre- 
mer  in  his  "  Biblico-Theological  Lexicon,"  "  nothing  more  than 
'  baptism  of  repentance  into  remission  of  sins,'  and  '  repent,  and 
be  baptized.'  Not  as  though  repentance  were  to  be  worked  b}'  this 
baptism  in  the  place  of  remission,  but  remission  cannot  be  without 
repentance,  without  which,  also,  no  one  can  enter  the  kingdom  of 
heaven ;  and  as  repentance  is  required,  too,  of  all  who  come  to 
baptism  (Matt.  iii.  2,  8  ;  Acts  ii.  38),  it  remains,  accordingly,  the 
distinctive  characteristic  of  those  who  are  baptized  for  the  remis- 

omitted  by  Alfokd,  and  by  Westcott  and  IIobt  in  their  edition  soon  to 
be  published.  They  suppose  both  to  have  been  derived  from  the  parallel 
passage  in  Matthew.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  this  is  the  way  the.;?/'.s^ 
one  got  into  the  text  of  Mark:  as  to  the  second,  the  case  is  far  from  clear. 
I  incline  to  believe  with  Tischendorf."  — From  a  3Ianitscript  Letter  0/' Pro- 
fessor EzEA  AucoT  of  Cambridge;  to  whom  the  writer  would  liere  express 
his  great  obligations  for  repeated  favors  in  the  way  of  textual  criticism. 


116  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

sion  of  sins."  Alexander  Campbell,  who,  with  Dr.  Dale,  generally 
renders  haptizo  eis  "baptize  into,"  and  sees  in  this  phrase  the  idea 
of  a  passing  out  of  one  condition  into  another,  converts  John's 
metanoia  (change  of  mind,  or  repentance)  into  "reformation,"  and 
makes  John  baptize  the  penitent  and  sin- confessing  Jews  in  order 
to  effect  their  reformation.  Nor  does  Dr.  George  Campbell's  ren- 
dering differ  materially  from  that  of  his  American  namesake  :  "  I 
indeed  baptize  in  water  that  ye  maj"  refonn."  Truly  John's  bap- 
tism must  hare  exerted  a  very  powerful  controlling  influence  !  But 
this  is  exactly  the  reverse  of  Peter's  method  ;  for  he  tells  the  people 
to  repent,  or  reform,  and  then  be  baptized.  In  view  of  the  notion 
of  baptizing  into,  i.e.,  to  effect  a  reformation,  we  simply  remark, 
that  John  required  a  reformation  of  the  people  prior  to  their  bap- 
tism, when  he  counselled  them  to  repent,  and  to  bring  forth  fruits 
worthy  of  repentance  ;  and  that  the  only  '  *  reformation ' '  into  which 
he  baptized  people  was  the  reformation  he  required  of  them  before 
their  baptism.  The  baptism  of  repentance  preached  and  practised 
by  John  was  a  baptism  wliich  presupposed  repentance,  and  which 
obligated  men  to  repentance,  just  as  the  corresponding  Christian 
baptism,  the  "  baptism  of  faith  "  (so  termed  by  Cremer),  presup- 
poses faith,  and  obligates  men  to  faith.  Alford  says  the  baptism 
of  repentance  is  "  sj'mbolic  of  repentance  and  forgiveness,  —  of 
the  death  unto  sin,"  &c.  J.  P.  Lange,  on  Mark  i.  4,  speaks  of 
the  baptism  of  repentance  "  as  not  onl}'  obliging  men  to  change 
of  mind  {metanoia) ,  but  also  exhibiting  and  s3'mboliziug  it."  And 
Professor  Eobert  Wilson,  the  rcAaewer  of  Carson,  says,  "  Whether 
we  baptize  into  Christ's  death,  into  repentance,  into  the  remission 
of  sins,  ifcc,  we  do  not  create,  w6  onl}-  recognize,  the  relation  pre- 
sumed to  subsist  between  the  parties  and  that  into  which  they  are 
baptized."  The  like  view  is  advanced  also  in  the  "  Speaker's 
Commentary,"  which  makes  the  "  baptism  of  repentance  "  signify 
"  a  baptism  requiring  and  representing  an  inward,  spiritual 
change."  Josephus  well  understood  the  character  of  John's  re- 
pentance-baptism when  he  said  that  "  he  commanded  the  Jews  to 
exercise  virtue,  both  righteousness  towards  one  another,  and  piet}- 
towards  God,  and  (so)  to  come  to  baptism ;  for  that  the  baptism 
would  be  acceptable  to  him  if  they  made  use  of  it,  not  for  the  put- 
ting away  (or  remission)  of  certain  sins,  but  for  the  purification  of 
the  body,  inasmuch  as  the  soul  had  been  previously  purified  by 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  117 

righteousness."  —  See  further,  ou  "John's  Baptism,"  R.  Ingham's 
"  Subjects  of  Baptism,"  pp.  3-10  ;  Matthies'  "  Baptismatis  Ex- 
positio,"  p.  44,  seq.;  Hofling's  "  Sakrament  tier  Taufe,"  pp.  2G- 
30;  and  Dr.  J.  A.  Starck's  "  Geschiclite  der  Taufe  und  Taufgcs- 
innten  "  ("  Ilistorj^  of  Baptism  and  the  Baptists  "),  p.  5,  seq. 

In  our  own  view,  therefore,  the  baptism  of  repentant  men  eis 
(into)  repentance  ma}'  well  express  an  appertaining,  or  belonging, 
or  obligation,  to  repentance,  or  an  exhibition  or  profession  of  re- 
pentance, or  both  participation  and  profession.  To  be  baptized 
into  Moses, -into  the  name  of  Paul,  into  Christ,  &c.,  evidently  in- 
volves the  idea  of  "  allegiance  to  "  or  "belonging  to  "  Moses,  Paul, 
and  Christ,  —  such  allegiance  and  belonging  as  would  characterize 
their  respective  disciples  and  followers  ;  and  as  eis  means  unto  as 
well  as  into,  and  as  this  U7ito  seems  to  express  a  belonging  to,  I 
would  adopt  this  as  the  best  one  word  to  stand  before  all  the 
"  ideal  elements  "  of  baptism  in  the  New  Testament. 

Dr.  Dale  insists  that  w^e,  as  consistent  Baptist  expositors,  mak- 
ing John  to  baptize  Jesus  into  the  Jordan,  should  also  make  John 
perfoivm  the  superhuman  task  of  baptizing  his  countrj'uien  into 
repentance.  See  Matt.  iii.  11:  "I  indeed  baptize  3'ou  in  water 
(our  version,  and  so  Dr.  Dale,  with  water)  into  repentance." 
Of  the  two  words  which  may  here  denote  element,  "water"  and 
"repentance,"  the  former  o/te?i,  the  latter  werer,  occurring  alone 
with  liuptizo,  tlie  former  alone,  as  Professor  Stuart  would  say, 
"  naturally  designates  the  element."  To  immerse  or  "  merse  "  a 
person  or  a  people  into  repentance,  or  into  a  name,  or  into  another 
person,  is  unnatural  and  incongruous  phraseology.  If  we  substitute 
the  word  "  merge  "  or  "  immerge,"  the  phraseology  would  be  less 
solecistic,  but  still  far  from  natural.  Besides,  Dr.  Dale  will  tell 
us  that  "  merge  "  is  no  equivalent  or  exact  s3'nonyme  of  immerse 
or  baptize.  The  Holy  Spirit,  considered  in  its  influences  as  poured 
out  and  shed  abroad,  is  indeed,  in  the  Scriptures,  appropriate!}' 
regarded  as  a  baptismal  clement,  and,  as  such,  is  directl}'  contrasted 
with  w^ater.  Far  different  from  this  is  the  case  of  the  so-called 
"  ideal  elements."  If  John  had  said,  "I  baptize  you  in  water, 
but  ye  shall  hereafter  be  baptized  in  or  into  the  name  of  Christ, 
and  in  or  into  remission  of  sins,"  &c.,  this  would,  to  a  certain 
extent,  have  favored  Dr.  Dale's  A-iew  of  "ideal  elements;"  but 
these  are  never  compared  or  contrasted  with  water,  and  no  char- 


118  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

acteristic  of  a  proper  baptismal  element  or  act  is  congruous  ■vrith 
them.  Again:  we  are  baptized  not  onlj-  "into"  the  name  of 
Christ,  but  in  Acts  ii.  38,  x.  48,  we  have  the  phrases,  ujDon  the 
name  and  in  the  name,  in  immediate  and  inseparable  connection 
with  baptizo  (although  Dr.  Dale  can  not  onty  separate  them,  but 
can  even  interpolate  a  word  into  the  text  which  inspiration  never 
thought  of  recording)  ;  and  this  diversity  of  phrase  opposes  itself 
strongty  against  this  "ideal-element"  theor3\  Justin  Martyr, 
the  first  "father"  who  describes  the  mode  of  baptism,  uses,  not 
the  usual  preposition  "into"  the  name,  but,  as  in  Acts  ii.  38, 
"upon"  the  name,  as  follows:  "Then  they  (the  persuaded  and 
believing)  are  led  by  us  to  where  there  is  water,  and  they  are 
regenerated,  &c. ;  .  .  .  for  they  make  their  bath  in  the  water 
upon  the  name  of  the  Father,"  &c.  Yfould  Dr.  Dale  also  render 
this,  "then  thej'  are  washed  with  water  ('believing')  upon  the 
name,"  &c. ?  The  Clementines  and  the  so-called  "Recogni- 
tions" of  Clement  speak  also  of  baptizing  epi  (upon)  the  thrice- 
blest  name.  Chrysostom  makes  "in  the  word,"  which  Paul 
speaks  of  in  connection  with  "  the  bath  of  the  water  "  (Eph.  v. 
26),  to  mean  en  onomati,  &c.,  "  in  the  name  of  the  Father,"  &c. 
Nearlj'  all  the  Latin  fathers  have  the  phrase  in  nomine  (in  the 
name)  in  theu'  versions  of  the  baptismal  formula ;  which  fact  shows 
us  that  the}^  did  not,  in  the  manner  of  Dale,  regard  the  eis  to 
onoma  of  the  formula  as  an  ideal  receptive  element.  Thus  in 
Vision  III.  of  "The  Shepherd  of  Hermas  "  we  find  baptizari  in 
nomine  Domini.  The  Vulgate  also  gives  to  the  three  diverse 
phrases,  "upon,"  "in,"  and  "into"  the  name,  the  same  render- 
ing,—  to  wit,  in  nomine,  or  in  the  name;  and  Matthies  affirms, 
in  his  "  Baptismatis  Expositio,"  that  they  all  have  "the  same 
vim."  If  we  believed  in  these  ideal  elements,  we  yet  know  of 
no  reason  whj'  the}'  should  preclude  a  ritual  baptism  into  water, 
and  "  consistenc}' "  would  certainly  require  that  we  should  bap- 
tize into  both ;  but  consistenc}'  does  not  require  that  we  should 
baptize  into  the  name  of  Christ,  or  into  repentance,  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  water.  As  our  natures  are  twofold,  physical  and  spir- 
itual, so  we  can  assured^  be  baptized  into  water  and  into  an 
"ideal  element"  (if  there  be  such  a  thing)  at  the  same  time. 
And,  discarding  "ideal  elements,"  we  can  assured^  be  baptized 
into  water,  and  into,  unto,  with  reference  to,  in  relation  to,  such 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  119 

objects,  without  any  departure  from  the  established  usage  of  the 
preposition  eis.  To  hold  that  repentance,  for  example,  is  a  recep- 
tive, enveloping  element,  because  eis  (into)  metanoian  some- 
times follows  baptizo  en  Jiudati  (baptize  in  water),  is  a  gi'ound- 
less  assumption.  "  That  the  local  force  of  the  preposition  eis," 
sa^-s  Professor  Cremer,  "must  not  be  pressed  as  though  it  were 
to  be  explained  in  analog}^  with  Mark  i.  9  (into  the  Jordan),  is 
plain,"  &c.  Perhaps  Dr.  Dale  imagines  that  he  uses  eis  as  Cremer 
saj's'  it  should  be  done  in  this  connection,  — in  an  "ideal  sense." 
The  truth,  however,  is,  that,  while  he  employ's  it  in  connection 
with  "ideal  elements,"  he  yet  uses  it  with  a  "local  force."  As 
John  himself  baptized  in  water,  his  baptizing,  which  here  denotes 
a  physical  act,  could  not,  for  man\'  reasons,  have  been  into  the 
ideal  element  of  repentance.  If  "it  is  impossible  to  baptize  the 
body  or  the  soul  '  into  the  death  of  Christ '  b}-  anj'  external  act," 
so  it  was  impossible  for  John  to  baptize  hj  any  external  act  his 
fellow-countrymen  "into  repentance"  and  "into  remission  of 
sins."  Thus,  in  one  sense,  Dale's  exposition,  b}-  discarding  a 
proper  phj-sical  water-baptism  from  John's  ministry,  leaves  him 
with  nothing  whatever  to  do.  Our  author  does  indeed  speak 
of  John's  "administering  a  ritual  baptism  in  which  there  was 
water."  The  element,  however,  is  not  only  "  ideal,"  but  "  there 
is  no  phj'sical  use  of  baptizo  in  the  ministry'  of  John.  This  word 
has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  originating  the  presence,  or  con- 
trolling the  use,  of  water  in  the  rite  connected  with  John's  minis- 
tr}'."  As  used  in  the  history-  of  John's  baptism,  this  verb  has 
no  more  control  over  the  use  of  water  ' '  than  a  sleeping  infant  has 
over  the  earth's  diurnal  revolution."  In  Johannic  as  in  Christie 
Baptism,  baptizo  has  "no  concern  whatever"  with  the  use  of 
water.  How,  then,  could  John  baptize  "  symboll}' "  or  unsj-m- 
boll^',  either  in  or  with  water?  and  how  could  he  administer  an 
unpliysical  baptism  into  a  "verbal"  or  "ideal"  element?  Each 
of  these  things  is,  for  certain,  an  utter  impossibility.  Dr.  Dale 
appeals  to  the  Alexandrian  Clement's  baptizing  "  into  fornication," 
and  to  Josephus'  baptism  of  Gedaliah  "  b}"  drunkenness  into 
insensibilit}^  and  sleep"  (C.  128,  118),  as  proving  the  veritable 
existence,  outside  of  the  Scriptures,  of  baptisms  into  ideal  ele- 
ments where  there  is  no  physical  envelopment,  or  covering,  or 
dipping.     "We  will  concede  that  Thebe,  for  example    (C.    149), 


120  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

could,  by  a  certain  physical  use  of  baptizo,  baptize  "  with  much 
wine"  her  t3Tant  husband  Alexander  "into  insensibihty  and 
sleep"  (though  this  baptism  could  have  been  more  directly  per- 
formed b}^  himself),  and  that  thus  she  could  indirectly  baptize 
into  a  so-called  ideal  element.  If,  now,  John  could,  by  any 
ph^'sical  use  of  baptizo,  baptize  his  fellow-countrymen  in  or  with 
water,  and  if  this  kind  of  water-baptism  effected  repentance,  then 
it  might  be  said  that  he  indirectly  baptized  impenitent  men  "  into 
repentance."  But  Dr.  Dale  denies  that  John's  use  of  water,  a 
"powerless  symbol,"  could  in  an}^  way  effect  a  true  repentance. 
If,  moreover,  baptizo  had  been  put  to  a  proper  "  physical  use  "  hy 
John  (it  matters  not  whether  the  baptism  was  into,  or  in,  or  with 
water  ;  nor  does  it  matter  whether  it  was  a  sjinbol  baptism  or  not, 
for  a  baptism  is  not  destroj'ed,  and  made  no  baptism,  by  its  possess- 
ing a  symbol  character) ,  the  result  would  have  been,  on  Dale's 
showing,  ' '  destruction  of  life. ' '  The  phrase  ' ' '  John  was  baptizing 
in  water '  has  no  other  Greekly  meaning  than  death  by  drowning." 
And  yet  John  saj's  that  he  was  "  sent  to  baptize  in  water  "  !  Dr. 
Dale  makes  repentance,  the  ideal  element,  to  do  the  baptizing,  and 
John  the  "  Purifier  "  merely  sjTubolizes  that  baptism  by  a  sjmibol 
rite  with  which  baptizo  has  nothing  to  do  !  Here,  in  this  rep- 
resentation, we  have  plain  contradictions  of  Scripture.  The  Scrip- 
tures declare  that  John  baptized  men,  as  Dale  will  have  it,  "into 
repentance."  Our  author  avers  that  John  did  not  baptize  men 
into  repentance,  but  that  he  merety  symbolized  such  a  baptism, 
concerning  which  "symbolizing"  the  Scriptures  sa}'  nothing. 
The  Scriptures  also  affirm  that  John  baptized,  as  Dale  will  have 
it,  "with  water ;"  but  our  author  asserts  that  his  baptizo  and 
water  had  "  nothing  whatever"  to  do  with  each  other.  He  does, 
indeed,  speak  at  times  of  John's  baptizing  "  s3'mbolly "  with 
water ;  but  we  cannot  allow  him  to  confound  baptizing  S3'mboli- 
cally  with  the  sj^mbolizing  of  baptism.  John's  baptizing  in  water 
was  indeed  a  symbol  of  repentance,  and  was  hence  called  the  "  bap- 
tism of  repentance."  He  was  "sent  to  baptize  in  water"  syva- 
bolicallj',  or  as  a  sign  of  repentance ;  but  he  was  not  sent  to 
sj-mbohze  baptism.     These  two  are  yevj  different  things. 

But,  on  the  other  hand.  Dale,  b}"  making  repentance  the  element 
of  baptizo,  gives  John  altogether  too  much  to  do.  John  tells  the 
multitudes,  "I  indeed  baptize  you  in  water"   (or  with  water,  as 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  121 

some  would  have  it)  "into  repentance."  This,  by  our  author's 
exposition  of  haptizo  eis,  would  mean,  "I,  b}'  the  use  of  water, 
cause  you  to  pass  out  of  one  state  (impenitence)  into  another  state 
or  condition  (repentance)  ;  "  or,  "  I  controUingly  influence  you  with 
water  into  repentance."  But  this  is  a  great  deal  more  than  John 
'could  do.  If  he  could  have  baptized  men  "into  repentance,"  as 
he  did  baptize  them  or  could  have  baptized  them  "into  the 
Jordan,"  then,  indeed,  we  should  hold  repentance  to  be  a  baptis- 
mal element.  In  a  certain  sense,  John  might  have  preached  men 
into  repentance  ;  but  b}^  no  physical  act  could  he  baptize  them  into 
such  a  state.  No  use  of  water  could  effect  such  a  change.  Dr. 
Dale  need  not  tell  us  that  this  "is  precisely  the  doctrine  which 
John  makes  to  ring  in  the  ears  of  impenitent  Pharisees  and  Saddu- 
cees.  It  cannot  give  repentance,  or  remit  sins."  This  is,  indeed, 
John's  doctrine  ;  but  he  expresses  it  l^lindl}^  enough,  and,  in  fact, 
by  contraries,  when  he  says,  as  Dale  would  make  him,  "  I  control- 
lingly  influence  j'ou  with  water  into  repentance." 

But  Dr.  Dale  would  make  John  do  even  more  than  this.  Fol- 
lowing the  statement  of  Mark  i.  4,  he  makes  John  baptize  the 
multitudes,  not  now  into  rejoentance,  but  "  through  repentance  into 
the  remission  of  sins."  Repentance,  it  will  be  observed,  has  thus 
a  good  deal  to  do.  It  is  the  baptizer;  it  is  also  the  element;  and 
now  it  is  some  kind  of  means.  How  another  Dr.  Dale  would  rich- 
cule  all  this  !  But,  if  we  make  remission  of  sins  an  element,  John 
himself  also  does  a  mighty  work.  "  I  controlhngl}'  influence  3-ou 
with  water  into  the  remission  of  sins."  This  sounds  hke  the 
highest  kind  of  Iligh-Churchism  and  Pusejism.  If  John,  however, 
had  expressed  himself  fully,  so  as  to  accord  with  the  Dale  theorj', 
he  probabty  would  have  said,  "I  influence  you  controUingly,  yet 
onl}^  symholhj,  with  water,  into  the  remission  of  sins."  A  httle 
water  used  ' '  s3'mboll3' ' '  must  even  thus  have  had  a  very  powerful 
eflTect.  But  some  one  may  sa}-,  "You  have  here  left  out  repent- 
ance; and  has  not  this  something  to  do  with  remission  of  sins?  " 
Yes,  we  think  so  ;  and  hence  we  cannot  regard  the  "  into  remission 
of  sins"  as  another  element  of  haptizo.  John,  indeed,  preached 
"a  baptism  of  repentance  into  remission  of  sins."  The  baptism 
which  he  preached  and  practised  as  a  symbol  or  declaration  of  and 
engagement  to  repentance  was  to  be  preceded  by  repentance,  and 
hy  fruits  worthv  of  repentance, — such  a  repentance  as  would  issue 


122  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

in  or  result  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ;  and  as  John's  baptism 
was  characterized  b}^  a  demand  for  a  repentance  which  had  a  -sdew 
to  the  remission  of  sins,  and  was  appointed  to  S3Tnboli2e  such  a 
repentance,  so  his  baptism  of  rei^entance  may  be  said  to  have 
respect  to,  and  to  be  for,  the  remission  of  sins.  Metanoia  and 
apJiesis  (repentance  and  remission)  are  frequent  and  almost  in- 
separable terms  in  gospel  nomenclature.  "  That  repentance  and 
remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in  {ejji,  upon)  His  name ;  " 
"Repent,  and  turn  (e«s),  in  order  that  j'our  sins  maybe  blotted 
out ;  "  "  Hun  as  a  Prince  and  Sa^-iour  did  God  exalt  to  his  right 
hand,  to  give  repentance  to  Israel,  and  remission  of  sins  ;  "  "  Re- 
pent, therefore,  of  this  wickedness,  and  pray  the  Lord,  if  perhaps 
the  thought  of  thy  heart  may  be  forgiven;"  "  Repent,  and  be 
each  of  you  baptized  upon  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  unto  remis- 
sion of  sins"  (Luke  xxiv.  47;  Acts  iii.  19,  v.  31,  viii.  22,  ii. 
38).  After  the  words  "repent"  and  "repentance,"  we  have  in 
the  original  Scriptures,  very  frequentty,  the  preposition  eis,  into, 
unto,  or  in  order  that  (see  above,  Acts  ii.  38,  iii.  19)  :  so  in  Acts 
xi.  18,  2  Cor.  vii.  10,  2  Tim.  ii.  25,  we  have  the  phrases,  repent- 
ance into  (unto)  life,  repentance  into  (unto)  salvation,  repentance 
into  (unto)  the  full  knowledge  of  the  truth.  What  hinders,  then, 
our  ha\T.ng,  in  accordance  with  Scripture  faith  and  teaching,  a  re- 
pentance into  (unto)  remission  of  sins,  or  a  baptism  of  repentance 
into  (unto)  remission  of  sins?  (Mark  i.  4;  Luke  iii.  3.)  Thus, 
in  accordance  with  Scripture  idiom,  this  "into  (unto)  remission 
of  sins"  need  not  here  be  converted  into  a  "figurative  water- 
pool,"  nor  be  regarded  as  a  baptismal  element  into  which  repent- 
ance baptizes.  Nowhere  is  it  stated  that  John  baptized  men 
into  the  remission  of  sins,  but  that  he  preached  the  baptism  of 
repentance  eis  with  reference  to  remission.  From  Paul's  obser- 
vation in  Acts  xix.  4,  we  learn  that  John  baptized  the  same 
baptism  of  repentance  which  he  preached.  He  does  not  sa}'  that 
the  baptism  preached  was  spuitual  and  real,  "in  which  there 
was  no  water,"  and  the  baptism  administered  was  ritual  and 
symbolical ;  nor  does  he  say  that  John  baptized  his  baptism  of 
repentance  "  into  remission,"  nor  that  his  baptism  of  repentance 
baptized  "  into  remission."  Can  haptisnia  —  a  word  which,  by  its 
ending  {ma,  and  not  mos),  expresses,  in  Dale's  view,  not  "  act," 
but  "  state  or  condition  "  (not  necessarily  so,  however  :  see  Sopho- 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  123 

cles'  Greek  Grammar,  §  139  ;  and  the  Latin  haptisma  and  baptis- 
mus  we  know  are  used  indiscriminately)  —  be  used  as  a  verb  of 
action  to  put  repentant  men  into  remission?  Again:  shall  we 
sa^^  with  our  author  that  "  the  baptism  which  John  preached  did 
issue  in  the  remission  of  sins ' '  ?  Then  we  must  also  sa}'  that 
the  baptism  which  he  practised  did  issue  in  repentance ;  for  he 
says,  "  I  baptize  3'ou  in  water  into  repentance."  But  the  truth  is, 
they  were  alread}'  in  a  state  of  penitence  and  pardon  before  they 
received  any  baptism.  Their  "  souls  had  alread}'  been  purified  by 
righteousness,"  and  their  repentance  had  already  secured  forgive- 
ness. On  the  phrase,  "  baptism  of  repentance  into  remission  of 
sins,"  Professor  Riple}',  with  his  wonted  judiciousness-,  thus  re- 
marks: "That  is,  baptism  which  implied  an  acknowledgment  of 
repentance,  and  was  a  pledge  of  repentance,  and  which  had  respect 
to  the  forgiveness  of  sins  as  connected  with  repentance."  It  was 
such  a  repentance  as  this  which  John  symbolized  in  his  water- 
baptism, —  a  repentance  which  secured  their  forgiveness,  a  baptism 
which  indicated  the  fact  that  theirs  was  "  the  remission  of  sins." 
"  Baptism,"  saj's  Professor  Fee,  "  is  declarative  of  the  two  facts,  — 
repentance  on  our  part,  and  forgiveness  on  God's  part :  and  thus 
both  repentance  and  baptism  are  {eis)  to  the  end  remission  of 
sins,  —  the  one  absolute,  the  other  relative  :  the  one  makes  us  in 
purpose  right  before  God,  the  other  before  our  own  souls  and  the 
world.  .  .  .  'He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized' — he  that  has 
faith  that  e\inces  itself  in  the  works  of  obedience  — '  shall  be 
saved.'  Repentance  and  baptism,  then,  are  {eis)  to  the  end 
remission  of  sins,  into  the  relation  of  forgiven  ones."  "  In 
both  passages  "  (Acts  ii.  38,  xxii.  IG),  says  Professor  Hackett, 
"  baptism  is  represented  as  having  this  importance  or  efficac}', 
because  it  is  the  sign  of  the  repentance  and  faith  which  are  the 
conditions  of  salvation."  In  regard  to  eis  aphesin  hamartion,  in 
order  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins  (Acts  ii.  38),  Professor  Hackett 
thus  remarks:  "  T\^e  connect  [this]  natnrall}'  with  both  the 
preceding  A'crbs.  This  clause  states  the  motive  or  object  which 
should  induce  them  to  ^repent  and  be  baptized.  It  enforces  the 
entire  exhortation,  not  one  part  of  it  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
other."  Possibly  the  same  might  be  said  of  both  parts  of 
the  phrase,  "  baptism  of  repentance  "  (for  the  forgiveness  of 
sins).     Some,  however,  as  TertuUian,  Chr3-sostom,  Jerome,  Greg- 


124  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

ory,  Theoph^^act,  among  the  fathers,  and  Mej^er,  Lange,  Alford, 
Wordsworth,  and  the  "  Speaker's  Commentary,"  of  our  da}',  hold 
that  John's  baptism  was  preparator}'  to  the  remission  of  sins  to  be 
received  subsequently  from  the  Messiah ;  but  we  thinlj,  with 
Gregor}'  of  N^'ssa,  and  C^'ril  of  Jerusalem,  with  Hofmann  and 
Ewald,  that  John's  baptism,  as  indicative  of  repentance  expe- 
rienced, had  reference  to  a  remission  already'  received. 

We  know  very  well  what  Dr.  Dale,  in  opposition  to  these  ^dews, 
has  to  say  about  a  physical  water-baptism,  and  "  destruction  of 
life,"  and  how,  in  opposition  to  any  such  phj'sical  intusposition, 
he  adduces  his  wine-drinking  baptism.  But  we  doubt  whether  he 
will  affirm  very  loudl}'  again  that  John  could  have  baptized  the 
multitudes  in  the  Jordan  or  in  ^non  by  making  them  to  drink  of 
its  waters  ;  baptizo,  meanwhile,  looking  on  in  silence  and  uncon- 
cern. Should  he  do  so,  he  may  be  called  on  for  his  authority 
to  make  such  a  statement, — to  show,  at  least,  that  "drinking" 
was  the  usual  method  of  baptizing  in  or  with  water  ;  or,  failing  to 
do  that,  to  point  out,  if  he  can,  a  single  instance  of  such  water- 
drinking  baptism  on  record. 

It  follows,  from  what  we  have  seen,  that  Dale's  influence  theor}', 
of  a  repentance  baptizing  through  repentance  into  repentance,  and 
thus  into  remission  of  sins,  involves  not  only  absurdity,  but 
manifest  heres^^  and  falsehood.  The  making  of  repentance  an 
element  of  baptizo  supposes  that  the  people  were  for  the  first  time 
put  into  a  state  of  repentance  b}'  John's  baj^tizing  them  in  water. 
For  Dale  will  not  den}'  that  to  baptize  any  one  (either  with  water 
or  with  the  Hol}^  Spirit)  into  repentance  "  indicates  the  passage 
of  such  an  object  out  of  one  condition  (impenitence)  into  another 
condition  (repentance),  without  removal."  But  John's  disciples 
were  already  repentant  before  their  baptism ;  and  hence  John's 
baptizing  them  into  repentance  did  not  put  them  into  that  state  as 
for  the  first  time.  And  Christ's  apostles  were  already'  repentant 
before  His  baptizing  them  in  or  with  the  H0I3'  Spirit ;  while,  indeed, 
nothing  is  said  of  His  baptizing  them  "  into  repentance."  It  is 
only  John  who  thus  baptized  the  people,  and  he  did  not  put  them 
into  repentance  as  for  the  first  time  b}'  his  "  baptizing  iii  water." 
And  again  :  the  Gospels  teU  us  that  John  was  ' '  sent  to  baptize 
in  water,"  manifestly  as  a  sj^mbol  of  rejDentance.  Dale  tells  us 
that  John's  baptism  was  repentance-baptism,  —  that  is,  a  baptism 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  125 

effected  by  repentance,  —  and  that  John  merely  sjonbolized  this 
baptism.  Does  there  not  lie  here  an  action,  —  "The  Gospels 
versus  Dr.  Dale  "  ? 

And  in  this  connection  we  might  ask  why,  since  John  only  prac- 
tised a  sjTnbol-rite  of  baptism,  he  could  not  have  selected  a  sym- 
bol which  corresponded  more  nearly  to  the  intusposition  idea  of 
baptizo  than  its  "  non-natnral  sersators,"  sprinkling  or  pouring 
or — ^drinkinrj?  Certainly  this  baptizo  idea  of  "passing  out  of 
one  condition  into  anotlaer,"  this  within-putting  (intusposition) 
of  the  soul  into  repentance,  into  remission  of  sins,  into  the  name 
of  Christ,  &c.,  could  be  represented  by  the  use  of  water  in  no  better 
wa}",  ive  should  say  in  no  other  way,  than  by  the  entire  immersion 
of  the  believer's  person  in  water.  Certainly  a  baptism  into 
"clean,  water "  should  naturally  sjTnbolize  a  baptism  into  a 
cleansing  "  ideal  "  element ;  and,  if  we  held  to  this  kind  of  bap- 
tism, we  should  strongl}'  advocate  immersion  in  pvu-e  water  as  its 
fittest  sj'mbol.  And  certainly  it  is  the  sheerest  of  all  unwarranted 
assumptions  to  take  for  granted  that  a  baptism  into  ideal  elements 
precludes  and  does  away  with  a  representative  physical  baptism. 
Just  as  reasonabl}'  might  the  would-be  ' '  proselji^es ' '  in  former 
times  have  taken  it  for  granted,  that  because  they  had  become 
the  spiritual  children  of  Abraham,  and  had  experienced  the 
inward  "  circumcision  of  the  heart,"  they  were  thereb}-  exempted 
or  debarred  from  the  observance  of  the  outward  rite.  How  is  it, 
that,  on  this  assumption,  Peter  did  not  tell  the  Gentile  Cornelius 
and  his  companj'  of  "kinsmen  and  near  friends,"  that,  as  they 
had  alread}'  experienced  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  the}'  need  not 
trouble  themselves  to  receive,  or  that  the}-  could  not  receive,  the 
outward  baptism  of  water  ?  And  why  did  not  the  writer  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  in  some  way  intimate,  that,  if  our  hearts 
had  been  "  sprinkled  from  an  evil  .conscience,"  it  were  superfluous 
or  impossible  that  our  bodies  should  be  ' '  bathed  in  pure  water ' '  ? 
Indeed,  our  author  concedes  that  the  "  Scriptures  speak  of  two 
baptisms,  —  a  sj'mbol  baptism  of  the  body,  effected  b}'  water  ;  and 
a  real  baptism  of  the  soul,  effected  by  the  H0I3'  Ghost."  Admit- 
ting the  justness  of  this  concession,  we  cannot  but  wonder  that 
Dr.  Dale  ventures  to  speak  of  a  "  baptism  of  the  bod}',"  for  this 
sounds  like  a  "  physical  baptism  "  (or  drowning)  ;  and  the  doctor 
assures  us  that  "  there  is  no  such  thing  in  Scripture  as  a  physical 


126  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

baptism."  When  he  speaks  of  a  "  sj^mbol  baptism  of  the  body," 
does  he  mean  a  baptism  of  the  "  whole  person  "  ?  Does  he  mean, 
in  accordance  with  one  of  liis  definitions  of  baptizo,  that  the  bap- 
tizer  b}' some  '■'■act"  "thoroughly  changes  the  character,  state, 
or  condition  [of  the  body]  hj  placing  it  in  a  state  of  phj-sical  intus- 
position  "  ?  A  "  baptism  of  the  body  effected  by  water ' '  will 
certainl}'  allow  of  this  ' '  physical  [and  fatal]  intusposition, ' '  Or 
does  he  mean  that  the  baptizer  is  possessed  of  some  mysterious 
pervading  and  assimilating  '•'•  influence  "  whereby  he  "  controllingly 
influences,"  or  "  thoroughlj'  changes,  the  character,  state,  or  con- 
dition of  the  '  body  '  "  ?  What  a  mighty  work  is  effected,  accord- 
ing to  Dale's  definitions  of  baptizo,  by  a  "  sjinbol  baptism  of  the 
body  "  !  Can  it  be  trul}^  said  that  our  author  holds  to  a  bodily 
baptism?  We  think  not.  We  are,  however,  glad  to  be  assured 
that  a  "baptism  actualized  b}'  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  that  a  bap- 
tism into  "  ideal  elements,"  as  into  repentance,  into  the  name  of 
Christ,  into  the  remission  of  sins,  &c.,  ma^"  be  "  sj'mbolized " 
and  "illustrated"  b}'  a  ritual  sj'mbol.  Simon  Magus,  as  is  con- 
ceded, though  he  had  experienced  no  real  baptism  of  the  soul 
effected  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  was  yet,  with  the  other  Samaritans, 
baptized  into  an  ideal  element,  the  "name  of  the  Lord  Jesus," 
which,  with  Dr.  Dale,  is  sjnionj-mous  with  "remission  of  sins;" 
and  this  his  baptism,  though  no  water  is  mentioned,  is  acknowl- 
edged to  be  a  ritual  baptism  "  with  water."  The  "  about  twelve  " 
Johannean  disciples  at  Ephesus  were  also  ritually  baptized  into 
the  same  ideal  element.  Thus  a  baptism  into  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  and  into  remission  of  sins  can  be  illustrated  by  a 
water-rite,  provided  this  sj'mbol-rite  be  not  a  baptism  into  or  in 
water!  Yet  John  baptized  not  only  "into  repentance,"  but  "m 
water."  The  Israelites,  according  to  Paul's  statement,  not  only 
baptized  themselves  "into  Moses,"  but  m  (not  by,  as  Stacey,  God- 
win, and  Dale  would  have  it)  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea.  And 
where  Paul  asserts  (1  Cor.  xii.  13)  that  "  we  were  all  baptized  in 
one  Spirit  into  (so  as  to  be)  one  bodj',"  De  Wette  refers  this 
"  Spirit "  to  baptismal  element.  Olshausen  appears  also  to  take 
a  similar  idew.  According  to  the  Dale  "  theory,"  there  can  be  a 
baptism  into  several  different  ideal  elements  at  one  and  the  same 
time  ;  as,  for  example,  into  repentance,  into  remission  of  sins, 
(possiblj')  into  the  Coming  One,  and  all  this  as  into  "John's 


STUDIES  OJSr  BAPTISM.  127 

baptism  "  (Acts  xix.  3,4).  Surely  he  can  allow  us  to  baptize  into 
water  and  into  an  ideal  something,  if  not  into  relation  to  or 
with  reference  to  something  else,  at  one  and  the  same  time. 
Supposing  the  existence  of  a  baptism  into  ideal  elements,  why 
may  we  not,  with  our  duplicate  natures,  be  baptized  in  or  into 
water,  and  "  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  as  into  the  soul's 
life-element,  at  the  same  time  ? 

"In  the  very  act  of  baptism,"  says  Theophylact,  "water  is 
conjoined  for  the  sake  of  the  bod}';  for,  we  being  twofold, 
the  cleansing  also  is  twofold."  C3Til  of  Jerusalem  says,  "Yet, 
after  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  Scripture  saitli  that  Peter  comananded 
them  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  that,  the  soul 
having  been  regenerated  through  their  faith,  the  body  also,  by 
means  of  the  water,  might  share  the  gift."  And  Ambrose  thus 
speaks  :  "  For,  man  consisting  of  two  natures,  soul  and  bodj',  the 
visible  is  consecrated  bj^  things  visible,  the  invisible  by  the  invisi- 
ble myster}^  For  the  bod_y  is  washed  with  water  :  the  sins  of  the 
soul  are  cleansed  b}'  the  Spirit.  It  is  one  thing  we  do,  another 
we  pray  for,  although  in  the  verj'  font  the  hallowing  of  the  Di\n.n- 
itj'  be  at  hand.  For  not  all  water  cleanses,"  &c.  If  it  be  asked 
whether  these  "two  baptisms,"  effected  by  widely  differing 
agencies,  and  not  occurring  simultaneous^  in  fact,  are  not  con- 
tradictor}' to  the  idea  of  the  "one  baptism"  of  Scripture,  Dr. 
Dale  shall  give  the  answer :  ' '  The  baptism  symbolized  hj  water 
is  not  another  baptism,  but  the  \ery  baptism  actualized  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  declared  bj'  the  ritual  words,  and  illustrated  b}'  the 
ritual  sj'mbol."  Dr.  Dale,  then,  does  not  object  to  a  "  s^inbol- 
baptisra  of  the  body,"  provided  it  is  not  "effected  b}' "  immer- 
sion, or  a  "  dipping  into  water."  His  objections  to  these  uses  of 
water  are,  we  suppose,  substantiall}'  these :  First,  That  the  verbal 
or  ideal  elements,  "into  repentance,"  "into  remission,"  "into 
Christ,"  &c.,  are  a  substitute  for  "into  water,"  and  forbid  a 
dipping  into  water  ;  which  is  assuming  as  true  the  very  thing  to 
be  proved.  Secondl}',  That  the  phrase,  "baptize  into  water," 
though  properly  an  organic  one,  does  not  occur  in  the  Scriptures, 
but  that  in  its  stead  we  have  the  word  for  water  in  the  dative 
case  with  the  preposition  en  (in),  or  without  any  preposition, 
indicating  thus  agencj'  or  means.  But  we  have  the  phi-ase, 
"baptized  into  the  Jordan,"  and  we  are  content  with  baptizing 


128  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

?*n  water  (the  exact  counterpart  of  Tertiillian's  ^Hn  aqua  mergi- 
mur"),  and  even  with  the  "dative  of"  (enveloping)  "means 
or  instrument;  "  since,  wherever  in  the  New  Testament  water  is 
in  this  regimen  with  baptizo,  the  element,  water,  is  always  contrast- 
ed with  another  element,  —  to  wit,  the  Holy  Spiiit ;  which  fact 
justifies  the  use  of  the  "nude  dative,"  while  at  the  same  time 
a  "  phj'sical  intusposition  "  in  water  is  not  forbidden.  Thirdly, 
Our  author's  principal  objection  to  a  baptism  into  water  is,  that  its 
normal  effect  is  "destruction  of  life."  But,  as  we  said,  we  are 
glad  to  agree  with  our  author  so  far  as  this,  —  that  a  sjmbol-bap- 
tism  of  the  body  maj  be  effected  hy  water ;  he  effecting  it  by 
the  way  of  sprinkling,  we  by  the  way  of  immersion.  Which 
mode  of  using  the  water  best  represents  the  normal  force  of 
baptizo,  and  the  real  baptism  of  the  soul  into  repentance  and  into 
Christ,  we  leave  our  readers  to  judge.  It  is  conceded  b}'  our 
author  that  John  practised  a  water-rite  as  a  sj-mbol  of  spiritual 
baptism.  A  "symbol,"  we  suppose,  denotes  something  having 
a  "  resemblance."  Our  query  is.  Why,  with  his  baptizo  demand- 
ing intusposition,  and  with  water  which  admits  of  intusposition, 
he  did  not  practise  a  water-i-ite  which  bears  some  resemblance  to, 
and  which  best  symbolizes,  the  baptizing  (or  intusposing)  of  men 
' '  into  repentance ' '  ?  But  Dr.  Dale  has  ah-ead}"  given  us  his 
answer  :  ' '  John  was  ' '  [not]  ' '  commissioned  to  drown  every  per- 
son whom  he  baptized  "  !  After  all,  was  there  ever  so  strong  and 
thorough,  we  might  almost  say  so  deep^  a  Baptist  before? 

That  our  readers  ma}^  become  acquainted  with  the  different 
views  of  writers  as  to  the  ground-meaning  of  eis  in  connection  with 
the  so-called  "ideal  elements,"  we  append  here  a  few  quotations. 
'■'■  Baptizein  eis  never  means  any  thing  else  than  baptize  in  refer- 
ence to,  in  respect  to;  the  context  alone  determining  the  more 
special  significations  "  (Meyer  on  Rom.  yI.  3).  "To  baptize  in 
reference  to  recognizing  and  confessing  the  name  of  Jesus :  by 
baptism  one  is  bound  to  believe  in  Jesus,  and  to  confess  this 
belief"  (De  Wette).  "In  the  might  of,  and  for  the  name;" 
' '  under  the  authority  and  unto  the  authority  of  the  Triune  God  ; ' ' 
' '  plunged  into  the  name  of  the  Three-One  God  as  the  element, 
and  the  dedication  of  the  baptized  into  this  name ' '  (Lange) . 
Baptized  "to  the  knowledge  and  confession  of  the  one  living 
God;"  "into  the  power   and  grace  of   that    name"     (Stier). 


STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM.  129 

"Planted  into  fellowship  of  the  Three-One  God"  (Wiesinger). 
"Sunk  into  His  death"  (Riickert).  "To  baptize  into  an}'  one 
signifies  baptism  as  devolving  a  thorough  obligation,  a  rite  where- 
by one  is  pledged  ;  and  the  sublime  object  to  which  baptism  binds 
consists  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost"  (Olshausen).  "To 
baptize  one  '  unto  repentance '  means  ...  to  bind  one  to  the 
exercise  of  repentance"  (Fritzsche).  "Formulae"  (into,  in, 
and  upon  the  name,  in  connection  with  baptizo)  "  eandem  habent 
vim  ita  ut  .  .  .  in  confessionem,  ad  confitendum,"  &c.  (Mat- 
thies).  "A  dedication  of  himself  to  the  three  persons  of  the 
blessed  Godhead,  under  the  separate  characters  which  they  bear  in 
the  work  of  redemption  "  (Professor  Bannerman).  "Into  com- 
munion and  fellowship  with  Him  and  the  Holy  Trinit}',  as  revealed 
in  the  work  of  creation,  redemption,  and  regeneration;  "  "Dedi- 
cated into  communion  and  fellowship  with"  (Schaff).  "  A  pro- 
fessed dependence  on  Him,  and  devoted  subjection  to  Him ' '  (T.- 
Scott). "  Purifying  them  for  the  Father,"  &c.  (Professor  J.  H. 
Godwin) .  "  An  insertion  of  him  within  Their  blessed  Name,  and 
a  casting  the  shield  (to  speak  humanl}-)  of  that  Almighty  Name 
over  him"  (Dr.  Pusey).  "Into  participation  of,  into  union 
with  ;  "  "  Into  a  state  of  conformity  with  and  participation  of  His 
death"  (Alford).  '•'■Unto,  object,  purpose;  into,  union  and  com- 
munion with  ' '  (Ellicott) .  ' '  Into  the  name  .  .  .  means  that  con- 
A'erts  are  pledged  b}'  baptism  to  a  faith  which  has  for  its  object 
the  Being  designated  by  that  name,  and  which  brings  them  into 
miion  with  Him"  (Speaker's  Commentary).  "  Unto  the  Father, 
...  as  manifesting  their  faith  and  obedience  in  respect  to  the 
Father,"  &c.  "  To  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  is  to 
receive  baptism  in  token  of  faith  in  Him,  and  subjection  to  Him  " 
(Professor  Riple}').  "Unto,  in  relation  to"  (Professor  J.  G. 
Fee).  "Into  union  with  Him,  and  subjection  to  Him"  (J.  A. 
Alexander) .  ' '  Into  obligations  incumbent  on  a  disciple  of  any 
one,"  "  A  profession  of  faith  in  and  obedience  to  "  (Edward  Rob- 
inson). "  By  baptism  we  come  to  belong  to,  consecrated  to,  an}' 
person  or  theory ' '  (Professor  Stuart) .  "A  profession  of  sub- 
jection ...  to  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  of  being  God's 
peculiar  propert}',  and  of  entire  devotion  to  His  ser^-ice  "  (Profess- 
or John  J.  Owen).  "Into  Chiist  denotes  a  spiritual  connection. 
with  Him.  .   .  .  The  truly  baptized  Christian  has  been  incorporat- 


130  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

ed  into  Christ"   (Professor  S.  H.  Turner).     "  Into  the  faith  and 
subjection  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost"  (Carson).^     Our 

1  Consult  further,  on  the  import  of  this  formula,  Ingham's  Subjects  of 
Baptism,  pp.  24-48,  111-116,  589,  590,  624-626;  also  pp.  35-41  of  Hofling's 
Sakrament  der  Tauf e ;  an  article  in  the  Christian  Review  for  1855,  vol.  xx. 
p.  281,  seq. ;  also  in  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  vol.  i.  p.  TO3,  seq.,  an  article  by 
Dr.  Bindseil,  translated  by  H.  B.  Smith.  Dr.  Bindseil,  in  the  manner  of 
Grotius,  makes  baptizing  into  a  name  equivalent  "  to  giving  to  one  the  name 
of  another;"  something  like  our  modem  "christening."  "The  baptized 
person,"  he  says,  "  was  accustomed  to  take  the  name  of  him  in  whose  name 
he  was  baptized."  Thus  to  be  baptized  into  the  name  of  Paul  was  to  be  a 
"Paulinist,"  &c.  "He"  upon  whom  the  name  of  the  Trinity  is  bestowed 
in  baptism  " acknowledges  his  subjection  "  while  yet  he  "is  elevated  to  a 
higher  dignity." 

We  may  here  state  that  Carson,  in  partial  agreement  with  Dr.  Dale,  says 
of  the  eis  of  the  commission,  "  Now,  though  water  is  not  the  regimen, 
yet  it  is  the  meaning  of  the  preposition  in  reference  to  the  performance  of 
the  rite  that  must  regulate  its  meaning  in  all  cases."  Dr.  Ashmore  too, 
our  highly-esteemed  missionary  in  China,  advocates  in  substance  Dr.  Dale's 
view  of  ideal  elements.  Yet  Carson  and  Ashmore,  and  the  many  other 
Baptists  who  agree  with  them  as  to  the  rendering  of  this  preposition  {eis  as 
into),  are  far  enough  from  adopting  Dale's  theory  of  "controlling  influ- 
ence" and  "ideal  elements,"  with  all  its  various  consequences;  which 
theory  jjroperly  does  away  with  water-baptism  and  water-rites  altogether. 
Dr.  Ashmore,  speaking  of  "baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Spirit,"  says,  "But  if  the  underlying  significance  is  an  incorpora- 
tion into  the  name,  then  we  can  see  why  they  are  to  be  merged  or  mmerged 
into.  .  .  .  Now,  this  merging,  or  this  intusposing,  if  Mr.  Dale  chooses,  can 
only  be  represented  by  immerging  or  immei-sing  the  whole  body  into  water, 
when  for  the  moment  it  disappears  like  something  incorporated  into  the 
water."  Again  he  says,  "While  I  afl3rm  the  underlying  idea  of  '  a  merging 
into,'  I  cannot  see  any  other  way  of  making  that  idea  somewhat  visible 
than  by  some  sort  of  an  operation  by  which  one  object  is  in  brief  space 
made  to  appear  to  be  completely  merged  and  incorporated  into  another 
'Object,  In  the  New  Testament  this  initiatory  'merging  into'  was  done 
'with  water'  and  'in  water;'  and  so  I  use  water,  and  go  down  into  the 
water."  Some  also,  who  are  not  Baptists,  find  in  the  phrase,  "baptize 
into  the  name,"  &c.,  a  very  striking  and  convincing  proof  of  immersion. 
So  the  Rev,  Dr.  Towerson,  in  his  work  on  the  Sacraments  (London,  1686), 
thus  remarks :  "For  the  words  of  Christ  are,  that  they  should  baptize  or  dip 
those Hvhom  they  made  disciples  to  Him  (for  so,  no  doubt,  the  word  hap- 
tizein  properly  signifies),  and  —  which  is  more,  and  not  without  its  weight  — 
that  '.they  should  baptize  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  thereby  intimating  such  a  washing  as  should  receive 
the  party  baptized  loithin  the  very  body  of  that  water  which  they  were  to 
baptize  him  with." 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  131 

closing  quotation  shall  be  from  Professor  J.  A.  Broadus'  article 
in  "  Christian  Review,"  1859,  p.  78,  seq. ;  to  which  we  refer  our 
readers  for  a  fuller  discussion  of  this  subject :  "  If  it  be  insisted 
that  we  should  translate  eis  by  the  same  word  in  the  commission 
as  in  the  examples  where  '  name  '  does  not  appear,  then  we  should 
think  it  greatly  preferable  ...  to  employ  uniformly  the  term 
unto  rather  than  into.  To  baptize  '  unto  the  name,'  '  unto  Jesus 
Christ,'  'unto  His  death,'  &c.,  are  expressions  which  readily 
suggest  that  general  idea  of  'as  regards,'  'with  reference  to,' 
which  we  have  shown  to  belong  to  these  phrases.  'Into'  does 
not  so  naturally  suggest  this  ;  and  then  it  is  ver}^  likel}^  to  carry 
with  it  a  notion  which  is  unscriptural  and  highly  objectionable,  — 
viz.,  that  baptism  itself  brings  us  into  a  union  with  Christ,  which 
we  know  results  only  and  immediate^  from  faith.  ...  If  any 
change  is  to  be  made  in  the  baptismal  formula,  let  it  be  '  unto  ; ' 
and  not  only  there,  but  in  all  the  other  passages  which  have  eis  in 
the  original." 


132  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

BAPTIZO   AND   THE   PREPOSITIONS. 
"  And  was  baptized  by  John  into  tlie  Jordan."  — Map.k  i.  9. 

THE  rendering  of  haptizo  eis  by  Dr.  Dale  is  invariably  "bap- 
tized into,"  save  in  three  instances.  One,  which  we  have 
already  noticed,  is  where  he  introduces  the  word  "  introduced  "  in 
Josephus'  baptizing  some  heifer-ashes  into  a  fountain.  Another 
example  is  from  the  classics  (C.  64) ,  where  the  superstitious  man 
was  told  to  baptize  himself  into  the  sea,  under  the  auspices  of  the 
old  Expiatrix,  to  cure  him  of  his  frightful  dreams.  Dale,  in  order 
to  save  the  poor  man's  life,  renders  it,  "  Merse  thyself  (going)  to 
the  sea."  That  such  was  his  kindly  motive  is  e^adent  from  his 
own  declaration  in  regard  to  this  passage.  He  says,  "It  is  such 
language  as  is  elsewhere  used  for  drowning;  and,  unless  dehverance 
come  from  some  other  quarter  than  the  phrase  itself,  drowning  is 
inevitable.  I  do  not  say  that  every  baptized  man  must  become  a 
di'owned  man  :  but  I  do  say  that  haptizo  never  did  and  never  will 
take  a  man  out  of  the  water  ;  and  a  command  to  baptize  a  man  in 
the  sea,  or  to  baptize  himself  into  the  sea,  is  a  command  (inter- 
preted simpty  by  the  force  of  its  terms)  to  drown  a  man,  or  to 
commit  suicide  hj  drowning,  just  as  surely  as  that  two  and  two 
make  four.  For  this  reason,  I  say  that  the  weight  of  e'S'idence  is 
in  favor  of  another  possible  intei-pretation."  And  in  his  explica- 
tion of  a  like  phrase  on  p.  627  of  his  last  volume,  "  baptizing 
into  the  lake,"  he  says,  "  The  participle  indicates  intusposition 
and  its  essential  controlling  influence  in  general ;  while  the  adjunct 
'  into  the  lake  '  points  out  in  particular  the  specialty  of  influence, 
which,  to  a  human  being,  is  death  by  drowning."  The  dreamer, 
then,  going  alone,  would  certainly  have  perished  if  he  baptized 


STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM.  133 

himself  into  the  sea.  But  is  such  au  evident  makeshift  translation 
as  this  really  worthy  of  notice?  The  third  instance  is  found  in 
the  passage  Mark  i.  9,  10,  which  we  shall  now  consider:  "Jesus 
came  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee,  and  was  baptized  by  John  into  the 
Jordan;  and  straightway  coming  up  {eh)  out  o/ the  water,"  &c.-^ 
The  latest  English  edition  of  Liddell  and  Scott's  Greek  lexicon 
assigns  to  eis  as  its  "  radical  meaning  into,  and  then  more  loose- 
ly in."  This  is  much  better  than  the  "radical  signification  — 
direction  towards,  motion  to,  on,  or  into" — of  our  American 
edition,  which  so  greatly  puzzled  the  author  of  the  "New  and 
Decisive  Evidence,"  that  he  has  given  "motion  into"  as  the 
fourth  and  last  and  "  unusual  "  specific  meaning  of  eis!  Baptizo 
eis,  we  are  told  elsewhere,  is  an  "  organic  phrase,"  and  thus  the 
two  words  naturally  belong  together.  Baptizo,  and  so  "im- 
merse," easil}^  and  naturaUy  construe  both  with  eis  and  en  {into 
and  in)  in  every  passage  in  the  New  Testament  where  a  ph3-sical 
element  is  mentioned  ;  and  it  is  only  when  we  substitute  for  these 
words  such  strangers  as  "sprinkle,"  "pour,"  or  "  pour  upon," 
"  pop,"  "  purify,"  or  "  influence  controlhngi}',"  and  the  lilve,  that 
all  the  related  prepositions,  eis,  en,  and  ek  {into,  in,  and  out  of), 
have  to  be  changed  about,  or  otherwise  manipulated.  The  sub- 
stitution, in  fact,  has  dislocated  every  thing,  or,  to  use  an  expres- 
sive country  phrase,  "thrown  everything  out  of  Jdlter."  Even 
when,  by  much  effort  and  force,  the  prepositions  are  adjusted  to 
the  new  order  of  things,  the}^  never  seem  to  be  entirely  at  home, 
or  to  rest  at  ease.  Carson  well  understood  the  predicament  Ids 
"friends"  were  in,  as  regards  the  prepositions,  when  he  said, 
"  What  the  grammarians  have  provided  to  explain  dco-fc  passages, 
they  use  to  make  dear  passages  dark."  ^ 

To  enliven  and  to  help  elucidate  this  discussion,  we  quote  further 


1  "  There  can  be  no  doubt,  I  think,  that  ek  (out  of)  instead  of  cqto  (from) 
is  the  true  reading  in  Mark  i.  10:  so  Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  Tregelles, 
Alford,  Westcott  and  Hoi-t,  Fritzsche,  De  Wette,  Meyer,  Vollonar,  Weiss, 
&c."  — Manuscript  Letter  o/ Professor  Abbot. 

2  We  have  noticed  that  Pedobaptist  writers  frequently  assume  at  the  out- 
set some  supposed  difficulty  in  tlie  way  of  ascertaining  the  meaning  of 
Clirist's  law  to  His  churcli  from  the  words  of  the  law  itself,  and  would 
guard  us  against  trusting  too  implicitly  to  etjTUology,  literal  meanings, 
Greek  usages,  &c.    So  Hutchings  begins  his  discussion  of  the  "  mode  of  baj^)- 


134  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

from  this  author  a  few  sentences  relating  to  this  subject:  "Ad- 
mitting all  that  is  demanded  for  this  supposed  vagueness  "  (in  the 
prepositions),  "is  it  not  utterly  incredible,  that,  with  respect  to 
this  ordinance,  each  of  the  three  prepositions  should  assume,  as  it 
were  in  concert  to  deceive  us,  its  most  unusual  signification  ?  .  .  . 
Is  it  not  absurd  to  suppose  that  the  Holy  Spirit  would  use  the 
three  prepositions  all  in  an  unusual  sense,  when  there  were  other 
prepositions  better  suited  to  the  purpose?  The  absurdity  is  still 
heightened  by  the  consideration  that  these  prepositions  are  used  in 
connection  with  a  verb  which  the  hardiest  of  our  opponents  can- 
not deny  as  importing,  at  least  in  one  of  its  senses,  to  immerse. 
The  usual  sense  of  the  whole  three  prepositions  is  in  our  favor : 
the  verb  admits  our  meaning  "  (as  the  hardiest  of  our  opponents 
concede)  ;  "  but,  according  to  the  great  bulk  of  the  most  learned 
of  our  opponents,  this  is  its  primary  meaning.     Judging,  then, 

tism  "  by  referring  to  an  old  law  of  King  Edward  III.  (noticed  in  Black- 
stone's  Commentaries),  wliicli  forbade  "  all  ecclesiastical  persons  to  purchase 
provisions  at  Kome;"  which  law,  says  Blackstone,  might  seem  to  prohibit 
the  bujdng  of  grain  and  other  victuals,  but  which  had  reference  rather  to 
the  purchasing  of  "  nominations  to  benefices  by  the  Pope."  Instead,  now, 
of  its  availing  nothing  to  "  search  the  dictionary,  and  find  the  etymology," 
we  could  not  well  understand  the  peculiar  meaning  and  force  of  that  word 
unless  we  knew  its  etymology;  but,  knowing  this,  we  could  easily  see  how 
a  "  fat  benefice  "  would  afford  good  provision  for  one's  livelihood. 

We,  of  course,  would  not  rely  in  our  argument  on  etymology  alone,  or 
literal  meanings,  or  Greek  dictionaries.  "Use  is  the  standard  of  speech" 
and  of  interpretation.  Words  by  use  acquire  tropical  significations,  and 
extended  though  commonly  related  meanings ;  as  witness  in  our  language 
such  words  as  "aspersion,"  "canard,"  "candidate,"  "candlestick," 
"clerk,"  "conversation,"  "dauphin,"  "dean,"  "dilapidate,"  "dowry," 
"duplicity,"  "edify,"  "Gehenna,"  "gossip,"  (a  sponsor!)  "heathen," 
"idiot,"  "impose,"  "knave,"  "manufacture,"  "martyr,"  "neighbor," 
"pagan,"  " paradise,"  "  parricide,"  "peculiar,"  "pecuniary,"  "pontiff," 
"prevent,"  "reflection,"  "remorse,"  "resentment,"  "ruminate,"  "sau- 
cer," "spirit,"  "sycophant,"  "villain,"  "vulgar,"  &c.  The  three  words, 
"hypostasis,"  "substance,"  and  "understanding,"  are  kindred  in  etymol- 
ogy, but  diverse  in  meaning.  To  ascertain  the  true  force  and  meaning  of 
such  a  word  as  baptizo,  we  must  ascertain  its  proper  usage  throughout  Greek 
literature.  It  is  the  peculiar  merit  of  Professor  Conant's  Baptizein,  that  in 
it  he  has  set  forth  all,  or  nearly  all,  the  classic  examples  of  baptizo ;  and 
that,  by  giving  them  a  natural  and  familiar  voice,  he  has  allowed  them,  as 
it  were,  to  speak  for  themselves,  while  all  who  hear  have  also  the  oppor- 
tunity to  judge  for  themselves. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  135 

even  from  their  own  admissions,  is  it  credible  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
would  use  language  so  calculated  to  mislead?  Could  there  be 
any  reason  to  pitch  upon  such  phraseology,  except  to  deceive?" 
(p.  133.) 

The  laborious  efforts  of  our  friends  among  the  prepositions  re- 
mind us  of  the  putting  together  of  the  parts  of  a  machine  by  those 
not  very  well  acquainted  with  it.  Put  together  wrongfully,  a  piece 
wants  easing  here  or  stretching  there,  or  twisting  somewhere 
else,  with  a  great  deal  of  jamming  and  pounding :  and  nothing 
seems  exactly  to  fit,  and  nothing  works  kindly,  till  you  put  the 
right  thing  in  the  right  place  ;  then  it  all  goes  together  easily 
enough.  Now,  the  prepositions  as  they  are,  with  their  primary, 
usual  meaning,  exactly  suit  the  idea  of  baptismal  intuspOsition  or 
immersion,  and  they  never  will  consort  easily  with  asaj  other  idea. 
Why  not,  then,  dispense  with  all  this  straining  effort,  and  abide  by 
the  literal,  usual,  ^jroper  meaning,  both  of  verb  and  preposition? 
Think  what  "  a  strait  betwixt  two  "  Professor  Stuart,  for  example, 
was  in  when  treating  of  this  simple  phrase  (rendered  thus  b}'  Pro- 
fessor Robinson  himself)  "  baptized  into  the  Jordan^'  !  He  has 
already  investigated  the  usage  of  the  classics,  and  freely  ac- 
knowledges that  "  hapto  and  baptizo  mean  to  dip,  plunge,  or  im- 
merge.  All  lexicographers  are  agreed  in  this."  In  regard  to 
the  mode  of  baptism  in  the  early  Christian  churches,  after  addu- 
cing various  testimony,  he  sa3's,  "  But  enough.  '  It  is,'  sa3's  Au- 
gusti,  '  a  thing  made  out ; '  viz.,  the  ancient  practice  of  immersion. 
I  know  of  no  one  usage  of  ancient  times  which  seems  to  be  more 
clearly  and  certainly  made  out.  I  cannot  see  how  it  is  possible 
for  any  candid  man,  who  examines  the  subject,  to  den}'  this."  He 
knows,  of  course,  that  into  is  the  usual  meaning  of  the  preposition  : 
but  he  finds  a  few  cases  (such  as  in  Alciphron  III.,  43,  "having 
bathed  iyito  the  bath,"  and  John  ix.  7,  "  go  wash  {nipto)  into  the 
Pool  of  Siloara")  where  eis  can  be  more  easily  rendered  "in," 
"  to,"  or  "  at ;  "  and  so  these  "  dark  passages  "  make  this  clear 
one  a  little  doubtful.  In  regard  to  the  import  of  the  -verb  itself, 
he  says,  "I  feel  philologically  compelled"  to  say  "that  the 
probabilit}^  that  baptizo  implies  immersion  is  ver}'  considerable, 
and,  on  the  whole,  a  predominant  one  ;  but  it  does  not  still  amount 
to  certainty."  And  what  does  he  say  about  "the  Jordan"? 
With  rare  honest}-,  he  is  accustomed  to  make  frequent  affirmation 


136  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

"  to  his  hurt ;  "  and  here  he  concedes  that  "  the  Jordan  naturally 
designates  the  element  by  which  the  rite  of  baptism  is  performed." 
And,  after  fom'  pages  of  critical  inquiry,  he  thus  concludes  :  "  On 
the  whole,  however,  the  probability  seems  to  be  in  favor  of  the 
idea  of  immersion,  when  we  argue  simply  ex  vi  termini;  i.e., 
merel}'  from  the  force  of  the  words  or  expressions  in  themselves 
considered."  And  at  a  later  point  he  further  saj's,  "  For  myself, 
then,  I  cheerfully'  admit  that  haptizo  in  the  New  Testament,  when 
applied  to  the  rite  of  baptism,  does,  in  all  probability,  involve  the 
idea  that  this  rite  was  usually  performed  b}^  immersion,  but  not 
alwaj's."  Just  think  of  the  pressure,  on  the  one  hand,  resting 
upon  him,  to  give  a  correct  philological  statement,  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  pressure,  the  almost  irresistible  weight  of  personal 
practice,  preference,  position,  reputation,  denominational  sjTiipa- 
thies  and  interests,  the  known  desu-es  and  hopes  and  expecta- 
tions of  his  brethren,  which  would  naturall}-  and  strongly  tend 
to  draw  him  away  from  making  any  concession  to  the  Baptist 
theory ! 

Dr.  Dale,  in  treating  of  this  passage,  disjoins  haptizo  and  eis, 
"  the  organic  phrase,"  and  refers  the  preposition  far  back  to  the 
verb  of  motion,  the  first  word,  indeed,  in  the  preceding  clause, 
virtuall}'  changing  the  sentence  thus  :  "  Jesus  came  from  Xazareth 
of  Galilee  to  the  Jordan,  and  was  baptized  by  John  ".  (ai  the  Jor- 
dan) .  This  is  to  re-write  the  Gospel ;  and  such  a  change  of  the 
written  order,  as  Professor  Loos  of  Bethany'  College  remarks,  "is 
not  sustained  hj  am'  of  the  versions,  nor  by  the  matured  scholar- 
ship of  the  age  "  (see  Professor  Fee's  "  Christ.  Baptism,"  p.  147) .. 
Commentators,  however,  can  be  quoted  on  both  sides  of  this  ques- 
tion. While  Meyer  regards  this  "into  the  Jordan"  as  convey- 
ing the  "idea  of  immersion," — Vorstellung  des  Eintauchen, — 
De  Wette  and  Winer  would  make  this  preposition  have  some  refer- 
ence to  the  preceding  verb  of  motion,  without,  however,  denj'ing 
the  das  Eintauchen  idea  of  haptizo.  Lexicons  and  grammars 
do  indeed  tell  us  that  eis  in  constructio  pregnans  is  joined  with 
verbs  which  express  rest  in  a  place  when  a  pre^'ious  motion  to  or 
into  is  expressed  or  imphed.  Instances  of  this  latter  kind  are 
found  in  John  i.  18,  Mark  ii.  1,  xiii.  16,  Luke  xi.  7,  —  "  He  who 
is  into  the  bosom  of  the  Father,"  "He  is  ijito  the  house,"  "He 
that  is  into  the  field,"  "My  children  with  me    are   into   bed;" 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  '        137 

and  in  most  of  these  examples  the  idea  of  a  previous  going  is 
easil}^  recognized.  Instances  of  the  other  kind,  where  the  idea 
of  previous  motion  is  expressed,  are  supposed  to  be  found  in  Matt, 
ii.  23,  iv.  13,  John  ix.  7,  &c,  —  "Coming,  he  dwelt  into  Xaza- 
reth,"  "  Coming,  he  dwelt  into  Capernaum,"  "  Go  wash  into  the 
Pool  of  Siloam." 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  verb  of  motion  in  these  passages  just 
quoted  almost  immediately  precedes  the  preposition ;  which  cer- 
tainly is  ver}'  unlike  the  state  of  the  case  in  our  passage.  '\Ye  may 
state  alsoi  that  Mej'er,  the  keenest  exegete  "  of  them  all,"  ex- 
plains the  use  of  eis  in  the  first  two  instances  (Matt.  ii.  23,  iv.  18) , 
not  from  the  previous  verb  of  motion,  but  from  the  verb  dwelt, 
with  which  the  preposition  is  united,  and  which  in  itself  involves 
the  element  of  motion  connected  with  settUng  don^n  into  a  place. 
In  reference  to  John  ix.  7  he  remarks,  as  Carson  did  before  him, 
that  the  washing  in  the  pool  could  not  be  effected  without  first 
going  into  it.  The  preposition  ek  (out  of)  is  properl}- antithetic 
to  eis  (into) ,  and  naturall}',  in  our  i^assage,  refers  to  Jesus'  coming 
up  either  out  of  the  water  or  out  of  the  river,  and  not  away  from 
the  river,  as  in  Matt.  iii.  16,  where  apo  is  found.  No  student  in 
Greek  composition  would  be  allowed  by  his  teacher  to  use  efc, 
instead  of  apo,  when  speaking  of  a  person's  going  axoay  from  the 
edge  or  shore  of  a  river.  A  similar  use  of  eis  and  ek  also  occurs 
in  the  account  of  the  baptism  of  the  eunuch  (Acts  viii.  39).  In 
regard  to  ek,  however,  we  are  told  that  the  passage  in  Mark  xv. 
46,  which  speaks  of  the  stone  as  being  rolled  to  {epi)  the  door  of 
the  sepulchre,  is  followed  in  a  succeeding  verse  by  the  query, 
"  Who  will  roll  for  us  the  stone  out  of  (ek)  the  door  of  the  sepul- 
chre?" And  John  (xx.  1)  speaks  of  Mary  Magdalene  as  finding 
"  the  stone  taken  away  out  of  the  sepulchre,"  as  though  the  stone, 
perhaps,  had  been  rolled  into  the  sepulchre.  And  such,  according 
to  Mej-er,  was  the  case,  in  part :  "  The  stone  was  rolled  into  the 
entrance  of  the  tomb,  and  so  closed  the  tomb."  And  this  vaay 
perhaps  serve  to  explain,  if  an}'  explanation  were  needed,  how  the 
disciple  John  could  go  into  the  sepulchre,  while  he  went  not  im,  but 
onh'  so  far,  that,  stooping  down,  he  could  look  in. 

In  reference  to  eis  as  meaning  into,  we  have  been  asked,  if,  when 
the  storm  of  wind  came  down  into  the  lake  (Luke  viii.  23),  it  was 
"  immersed  in  the  lake."     Probablj'  not,  — at  least,  not  the  whole 


138  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

of  it ;  yet  there  doubtless  was  a  good  reason  for  employing  here 
the  preposition  eis.  The  bed  of  Lake  Gennesaret,  it  is  well  known, 
lies  very  low,  and  is  surrounded  on  all  sides  by  steep  hills  and 
mountains  ;  and  it  is  through  the  gorges  or  ravines  between  these 
hills  that  the  storm-wind  comes  down  into  this  low-lying  lake. 
But  we  have  thus  far  been  trying  to  explain  ' '  dark  passages  ' '  by 
a  process  not  needful  for  explaining  a  clear  one.  It  is  an  estab- 
lished law  of  interpretation,  that  words  should  not  be  forced  from 
their  literal  senses  "  without  reason  or  necessity."  In  the  passage 
under  consideration  there  is  neither  reason  nor  necessitj^,  only  as 
one  has  a  purpose  or  theory  to  serve,  for  departing  from  the  literal 
meaning  either  of  verb,  noun,  or  preposition.  "The  Jordan" 
'■'•  naturally  designates  the  element"  in  which  the  baptism  took 
place.  The  "  in  the  Jordan  "  and  "  in  the  River  Jordan  "  of  like 
examples  are  strongly  confirmatory  of  this  view.  The  "water" 
in  the  following  verse  (as  also  in  Matt.  iii.  16,  as  Stuart  concedes) 
"  designates  the  River  Jordan  ;  "  and  the  phrases,  "  into  the  Jor- 
dan," and  "into  the  water,"  would  here  be  convertible  terms. 
The  preposition  eis  natural^  and  easily  construes  both  with  the 
noun  and  verb,  and,  unlike  the  eis  of  a  "  dark  "  passage,  is  self- 
explaining  :  in  other  words,  we  need  not  go  outside  of  the  phrase 
itself  for  its  explanation.  The  ek  of  the  next  verse,  as  we  have 
said,  is  the  natural  opposite  of  ezs,  and  indicates  a  point  of  depart- 
ure either  from  within  the  water  or  from  within  the  river.  And, 
finall}'',  baptizo,  in  its  literal,  usual,  ph^'sical  sense  (for  with  its 
figurative  senses  we  have  here  nothing  to  do) ,  ' '  demands  intuspo- 
sition."  Some  Pedobaptist  writers,  we  aire  aware,  tell  us  that 
rivers  were  resorted  to  in  early  times,  not  for  convenience  in  im- 
mersing, but  on  account  of  the  supposed  greater  purifying  power 
of  living  or  running  water  (for  pouring  or  sprinkling  purposes). 
"  Both  Gentile  and  Jew,"  sa3's  Dr.  Dale,  "  attached  a  specially 
purifying  value  to  running  water."  This  majhe  so  ;  but  I  am  not 
aware  that  Christians  have  ever  been  fastidious  as  to  the  natural 
character  of  the  water  used  for  baptism.  We  know,  at  least,  that 
Tertullian  said  it  makes  no  difi'erence  whether  one  is  washed 
"  maii  an  stagno,  flumine  an  fonte,  lacu  an  alveo,"  &c.  ;  which 
Dr.  Wall  thus  translates :  "  It  is  all  one  whether  one  be  washed 
in  the  sea  or  in  a  pond,  in  a  river  or  in  a  fountain,  in  a  standing 
or  in  a  running  water,"   &c.     The  reason,  then,  for  repairing  to 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  139 

the  River  Jordan  with,  eis  in  connection  with  baptizo  is,  that  the 
said  river  furnishes  the  element  which  is  proper  and  necessary  for 
that  "complete  intusposition,"  which,  according  to  Dale,  is  the 
"vital"  idea  of  baptizo.  There  can,  indeed,  be  a  going  to  the 
Jordan  with  eis  (as  in  the  Sevent}',  4  Kings  ii.  6,  3  Kings  ii.  8) 
for  other  purposes  than  baptismal  intusposition,  though  eos,  or  epi, 
or  pros,  would  answer  as  a  substitute  for  eis  to  avoid  any  possible 
ambiguity  ;  and,  for  such  a  going  to  the  Jordan,  the  preposition  eis 
would  not  require  an}'  enveloping  in  its  waters  :  but  when  such  a 
word  as  baptizo  is  connected  with  "into  the  Jordan,"  or  such  a 
word  as  tingo,  or  mergo,  or  immerse,  the  case  is  entirely  different. 
Ten  thousand  "dark  passages,"  where  eis  can  more  easily  be 
rendered  to  or  at,  would  not  have  a  feather's  weight  toward  dis- 
proving the  fact  of  intusposition  in  an  example  like  the  one  before 
us,  where  either  of  these  verbs  should  be  found..  Thus,  from 
every  point  of  view,  we  are  fully  satisfied  with  the  prepositions  as 
they  are.  There  is  nothing  "dark"  or  difficult  about  them  as 
used  in  connection  with  baptizo;  and  if,  in  any  case,  they  did  in 
themselves  present  a  seeming  difficulty  or  ambiguity,  the  estab- 
lished ' '  vital ' '  meaning  of  the  verb  baptizo  would  alone  be  suffi- 
cient to  make  all  right  and  clear.  If  it  should  be  proved  that  eis 
here  may  mean  "to"  or  "at,"  or  had  it  been  by  some  other 
phraseology  explicitly  and  unmistakably  declared  that  Jesus  was 
baptized  at  the  Jordan,  the  proper  and  usual  meaning  of  the  verb 
baptizo  would  plainly  enough  declare  the  fact  that  He  was  im- 
mersed in  its  waters.  Had  it  been  recorded  in  history  that  a 
certain  person  was  baptized,  i.e.,  immersed,  at  the  Jordan  River, 
we  never  should  have  guessed,  from  the  unusual  preposition  used, 
that  he  was  sprinkled  or  poured  upon  while  standing  on  the  river's 
bank.  Were  it  reported  that  a  certain  man  was  drowned  at  the 
Pludson,  the  somewhat  unusual  preposition  emploj'ed  would  not 
oblige  us  to  conclude  that  he  was  controllingiy  influenced  to  his 
death  "  without  intusposition  "  in  the  water.  Baptizo  and  im- 
merse, no  less  than  drown,  "  demand  intusposition."  And  this,  it 
will  be  seen,  is  really  the  view  of  Dr.  Dale  ;  for  he  sa^'s,  "  In  the 
phrase  baptizo  eis  there  is  an  essential  power  of  the  verb  which 
fixes  definitely  the  meaning  of  the  preposition.  The  verb  demands, 
in  such  construction,  withinness  for  its  object,  and  necessitates  eis 
to  indicate  the  passage  of  such  object  out  of  one  condition  into 


140  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

another  condition  without  removal.  There  is  no  question  as  to  the 
propriety  of  translating  eis  diversely  in  diverse  relations  ;  but  the 
question  is  this,  Can  eis  be  translated  otherwise  than  by  into  when 
construed  with  baptizo,  or  with  any  other  verb  of  like  character?  " 
To  the  objection  urged  by  an  opponent  —  that  "  as  this  is  the 
only  instance  in  which  eis  is  used,  and,  as  it  is  here  connected 
with  the  name  of  a  place,  it  is  much  more  probable  that  it  has  the 
common  signification  of  at" — Carson  (p.  298)  gives  the  follow- 
ing answers :  — 

1.  "Here  a  false  first  principle  is  assumed;  namely,  that  one 
instance  may  be  explained  in  a  meaning  which  it  could  not  have  in 
a  number  of  instances.     Can  any  thing  be  more  absurd? 

2.  "  If  it  is  construed  here  with  the  name  of  a  place,  that  place 
is  a  river  in  which  the  immersion  took  place. 

3.  "  If,  in  common  syntax,  such  a  phrase  has  such  a  meaning, 
why  should  it  not  have  this  meaning  in  the  syntax  of  Scripture? 

4.  "  If,  to  produce  such  a  meaning,  such  a  sjmtax  is  necessary 
in  common  language,  why  should  it  be  thought  probable,  that, 
where  such  s^'ntax  occurs  in  Scripture,  it  has  not  the  same  mean- 
ing? If  the  syntax  is  necessary  to  the  meaning,  why  is  the 
meaning  denied  where  the  syntax  is  found? 

5.  "  If  in  common  use  the  same  verb  is  sometimes  coupled  with 
e?i,  and  sometimes  with  eis,  wh}'  may  it  not  in  scriptural  use  be 
capable,  in  the  same  sense,  of  the  same  association? 

6.  "This  instance  does  not  give,  according  to  our  interpretation, 
a  new  meaning  to  the  preposition,  nor  a  new  meaning  to  the  verb 
associated  with  it,  nor  a  new  syntax  to  the  regimen.  What  rea- 
sonable pretence,  then,  can  there  be  for  a  change? 

7.  "  The  meaning  of  '  at '  is  not  a  '  common '  meaning  of  eis, 
as  he  asserts.  Even  by  those  grammarians  who  give  '  at '  as  one 
of  the  meanings  of  eis,  it  is  not  supposed  to  be  a  common  mean- 
ing." [And  in  the  following  pages  he  goes  on  to  prove  that  it 
"  never  has  this  signification."] 

8.  "This  extravagance  is  still  more  aggravated  when  it  is 
considered  that  the  prepositions  j>ara  and  ein  appropriately^  desig- 
nate at,  and  that  no  other  prepositions  but  en  and  eis  could  be 
employed  in  expressing  an  immersion  in  or  into  water.  If  these 
are  the  onl}^  prepositions  that  could  be  used  to  express  that  this 
ordinance  was  performed  by  immersion  in  or  into  water,  if  there 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  141 

are  appropriate  prepositions  to  express  a^,  if  water  or  a  river 
is  the  regimen,  what  can  the  meaning  be  but  the  common  meaning 
of  the  prepositions  in  and  into  ?  Can  an}'  reason  be  assigned  for 
giving  another  meaning  to  the  prepositions  but  an  obstinate  rekic- 
tance  to  admit  the  consequence  ? 

9.  "The  thing  is  still  worse  when  it  is  considered  that  this 
extravagance  is  employed  not  onl}^  to  avoid  the  common  meaning 
of  the  verb,  but  to  give  it  a  meaning  that  in  the  Greek  language 
is  not  in  CAddence  from  a  single  example." 

Carson  goes  on  with  still  other  answers  which  we  here  have  not 
space  to  quote.  Is  it  strange  that  Dr.  Dale  has  given  considera- 
ble attention  to  "  the  philosopher  of  Tubbermore  "  ? 


142  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


BAPTIZO   AND   THE   PREPOSITIONS. 


"  I  baptize  in  water."     "  And  they  were  baptized  by  him  in  the  Eiver 
Jordan."     "  He  shall  baptize  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire." 

IN  Professor  Conant's  one  hundred  and  seventy-five  examples 
illustrating  the  usage  of  baptizo  in  the  Greek  writers  (nearly  a 
dozen  more  examples  than  are  given  by  Dale) ,  the  verb  is  sixteen 
times  followed  by  eis  (into) ,  and  thirteen  times  by  en  (in) ,  in  con- 
nection with  element.  Bapto  (to  dip)  is  in  its  literal  sense  fol- 
lowed by  en  as  well  as  eis,  though  the  latter  usage  is  the  more 
prevalent.  But,  whether  eis  or  en  follows  haptizo,  the  fact  of 
actual  intusposition  is  just  the  same.  Dr.  Dale,  indeed,  says  that 
the  phrase  baptizo  en  "is  never  used,  by  inspired  or  uninspired 
writers,  to  express  the  passage  of  an  object  from  without  an 
element  to  a  position  within  an  element ;  "  and  yet  he  recognizes 
many  cases  of  drowning  with  this  preposition.  Indeed,  he  "  cheer- 
full}^  admits  that  the  phrase  '  were  baptized  in  the  Jordan^'  stripped 
of  the  specialties  of  its  use,  and  regarded  merely  in  the  possible 
force  of  its  terms,  may  express  a  mersion  in  the  Jordan,"  and 
refers  for  proof  to  Josephus'  Wars,  3:  10,  9  (C.  22),  where 
"vessels  and  crews  were  baptized  in"  Lake  Gennesaret ;  "and 
there,  at  the  bottom  of  those  waters,  vessels  and  crews  lie  until  this 
day."^     "We  say,  then,  that  the  phrase  'were  baptized  in  the 


^  Dr.  Dale  could  have  told  his  readers  that  some  of  the  crews  might  pos- 
sibly have  escaped  from  their  submergence,  had  it  not  been  for  their  Eoman 
enemies ;  for  Josephus  goes  on  to  say  that  ' '  such  as  were  baptized  in  the 
sea,  if  they  lifted  up  their  heads  above  water,  they  were  either  killed  by 
darts,  or  caught  by  the  vessels."  We  may  add  that  Chrysostom,  who  knew 
something  about  Greek,  evidently  could  have  no  sympathy  with  Dr.  Dale 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  143 

Jordan '  is  competent  to  effect  a  baptism  in  the  waters  of  Jordan  ; 
but  it  imtst  be  such  a  baptism,  as  will  place  its  object  within  the 
-WATERS  WITHOUT  REMOVAL."  Again:  he  saj's  that  if  "Greek 
forms  "  are  so  far  disregarded  that  people  will,  by  means  of  baptizo 
en, — a  phrase  which  in  his  \'iew  property  expresses,  not  a  ' '  passing 
into,"  but  a  "  resting  in  "  (would  he  say  the  same  of  embapto  en, 
in  Matt,  xx-sa.  23,  or  of  bapto  en,  in  Dent,  xxxiii.  24,  2  Kings  \dii. 
15,  Ruth  ii.  14,  and  the  like?),  — find  a  "  position  in  water,  there 
is  no  help  for  them  but  to  stay  there."  For  such  "  luckless  objects 
'in  the  water'  there  is  no  outcome."  Hence  to  be  put  in  water 
by  baptizo  en  would  be  as  bad  as  to  be  put  into  water  l^j  baptizo 
eis.  Thus  if  one  puts  slices  of  turnip  "m  the  sharp  brine" 
by  embaptison  holme,  according  to  directions  given  in  example 
C.  153,  "the  pickles,"  our  author  maintains,  "  will  still  remain 
immovable  in  the  brine."  We  wonder  that  he  did  not  add  "  for- 
ever "  !  Again  :  he  plainly  states  that  "  for  one  person  to  baptize 
another  in  water  must  by  the  simple  force  of  its  terms  destroy 
life."  Consequently  he  holds  that  "men  and  women  were  never 
put  in  the  water  by  any  command  of  God."  But  by  whom  was 
John  the  Baptist  "  sent  to  baptize  in  water  "  ?  Dr.  Dale  further 
objects  to  John's  immersing  the  people  in  water,  "  because  the 
preposition  may  denote  only  the  position  of  the  baptizer ' ' 
("  Johannic  Baptism,"  p.  272).  But  what  will  become  of  the 
"luckless"  baptizer  "m  the  water"?  Our  author  certainly  can 
see  "  no  help  for  him  but  to  stay  there  ;  "  and  this  is  treating  him 
much  worse  than  even  immersionists  are  charged  with  doing.  And 
here  we  may  remark  that  this  supposed  ' '  inevitable  drowning ' '  is 
really  the  only  serious  and  insuperable  objection  which  Dr.  Dale 
has  adduced  against  a  true  water-baptism,  or  immersion,  in  all  his 
four  volumes. 

In  our  last  chapter  we  saw  that  "into  the  Jordan,"  b}'  the 
manipulating  tactics  of  our  friend,  was  made  to  mean  to  or  at,  or 
both  to  and  at,  the  Jordan.     B^^  a  similar  process,  and  through  the 

in  his  drowning  views  of  baptizo;  for  he  says  "  that  one  who  is  baptized 
(in)  water  rises  again  loith  great  ease,  not  at  all  hindered  by  the  natnre  of 
the  waters  "  (C.  229).  He  probably  never  once  thought  of  the  import  of  the 
word  as  hindering  a  speedy  emergence.  Shall  we  ever  again  hear  of  this 
"  indefinite  period,"  this  "  unlimited  continuance,"  which  in  its  indefinite- 
ness  may  mean  a  minute  as  well  as  an  age  ? 


144:  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

same  necessity,  the  more  frequent  expression,  "m  the  Jordan," 
in  connection  with  baptizo,  is  made  to  signify  at  or  near  the 
Jordan;  the  phrase  "  ^■?^  the  Jordan,"  like  that  of  "in  the  wil-* 
derness,"  expressing  not  the  idea  of  element  at  all,  but  simple 
locality.  But  if,  as  Stuart  saj's,  "  the  Jordan,"  and  much  more 
"  the  River  Jordan  "  (as  in  Mark  i.  5,  which,  according  to  Schaff, 
is  also  the  "  best  reading  "  in  Matt.  iii.  6),  "  naturally  designates 
the  element,"  why  may  not  the  preposition  en  in  this  case  denote 
both  locality  and  element?  Some  have  maintained  that  the  Jordan 
here  may  mean  "  Jordan  region."  This  expression,  "  region,"  or' 
"  country  round  about  Jordan,"  occurs  twice  in  the  Gospels  (Luke 
iii.  3,  Matt.  iii.  5),  and  denotes,  in  the  first  instance,  the  place 
where  John  preached  the  baptism  of  repentance  ;  and,  secondty,  the 
place  w/ience  the  inhabitants  came  to  receive  John's  baptism  "in 
the  River  Jordan."  Dale  states  that  5 dhn preached  at  the  Jordan, 
and  made  his  home  at  the  Jordan  ;  and  he  sees  no  ' '  going  to  the 
river  "  for  baptism.  But  we  have  never  seen  any  such  statements 
in  the  Scriptures  ;  and,  if  they  do  not  say  that  John  went  to  the 
river  for  the  purpose  of  baptism,  t\x.&j  do  imply  that  the  people 
did,  and  one  place  from  which  they  went  was  the  ' '  region  of  the 
Jordan."  We  read,  according  to  our  received  text,  that  John 
both  preached  and  baptized  in  the  wilderness  ;  never  of  his  preach- 
ing "m  the  Jordan,"  but  only  of  his  "baptizing"  there:  and 
since  the  wilderness  where  John  preached  and  baptized  bordered 
on  the  Jordan,  and  "  the  Jordan  naturally  designates  the  element " 
of  baptism,  there  is  no  necessity  for  supposing,  with  Hutchings, 
that  John  ' '  thrust  persons  beneath  the  sand  and  dust  of  the 
desert,"  or  for  asking,  with  Dale,  "  how  is  there  to  be  a  dipping 
in  the  waste  lands  of  a  wilderness  ?  " 

According  to  Carson,  baptize  would  find  water  in  a  desert  like 
Sahara.  We  should  say,  however,  that  some  of  Cyprian's  "  com- 
jjends"  were  naturally  more  suitable  for  such  a  place;  and  the 
Carthaginian  bishop,  we  doubt  not,  would  think  that  a  threefold 
aspersion  or  sprinkling  of  sand  upon  a  person,  in  the  name  of  the 
Trinity,  would  answer  for  baptism  in  case  of  such  necessity  as  that 
of  the  supposed  dying  Jew  (referred  to  in  Smith's  "  Christian 
Antiquities,"  p.  168),  who,  while  travelling  in  the  desert,  was 
thus  baptized.  But,  as  the  wilderness  of  Judasa  la}^  near  to  and 
bordered  on  the  Jordan,  Mark   (i.  4.)  could  well  speak  of  John's 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  145 

preaching  and  baptizing  in  the  wilderness  (though  Tischendorf, 
Alford,  and  others  would  here  read  "the  Baptist,"  or  "he  who 
baptizeth")  ;  while  in  the  next  verse  he  speciahzes  the  particular 
place  of  immersion  as  being  "  in  the  River  Jordan."  John's  first 
baptizing-place  was  in  Bethabara,  or  Bethany  rather,  "  beyond 
Jordan."  But,  though  beyond  Jordan,  it  was  on  its  east  bank ; 
and,  thus  bordering  on  the  river,  the  baptizing  took  place  in  the 
river,  and  yet  in  Bethany.  A  person,  for  example,  may  be  said  to 
have  been  baptized  in  the  city  of  Providence ;  and  jet  it  may  not 
be  within  its  inhabited  parts,  but  in  some  secluded  point  of  See- 
konk  River,  on  which  the  cit}'  borders.  John  also  baptized  in 
JEnon,  a  place  of  "  many  waters,"  probably  l^'ing  some  little  dis- 
tance west  of  the  Jordan  (see  Note  II.,  end  of  the  volume). 
But  does  not  en  sometimes  mean  at  or  near  in  the  Greek  writers  ? 
Yes,  "much  more  frequently,"  sa^-s  Winer,  "in  the  Greek  wri- 
ters" thau  in  the  New  Testament,  where  he  finds  but  two  or 
three  not  very  clear  examples  (all  referring  to  "  sitting  in  the 
right-hand  ' '  jilace) ,  and  makes  no  mention  of  ' '  in  the  Jordan ' ' 
as  one  of  them.  But  if  en  means  at  or  near  in  some  "  dark  pas- 
sage "of  the  Greek  writers,  or  in  a  passage  not  so  "  dark,"  is  this 
a  sufficient  reason  for  disturbing  both  verb  and  preposition  in  the 
"  clear  "  joassage  before  us?  If,  indeed,  water-baptism  to  a  living 
man  involves  "destruction  of  life,"  if  baptizo  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment has  no  complementarj^  relation  with  water,  if  there  is  nO' 
physical  use  of  haptizo  in  the  ministry  of  John,  if  John  did  not 
baptize,  but  only  symbolized  baptism,  then  must  his  haptizo  en  not 
only  be  taken  out  of  Jordan's  waters,  but  may  be  removed  awa}'- 
from  its  banks  even  to  the  remotest  parts  of  ' '  Jordan  dale ' '  or 
"  Jordan  region;"  but,  till  all  this  is  proved,  John's  haptizo  will 
cleave  to  the  river,  and  abide  in  its  waters. 

We  have  seen  that  "  into  the  Jordan  "  of  Mark  i.  9  is  followed 
by  '■'•out  0/ the  water"  in  the  next  verse:  so,  in  Matt.  iii.  6, 
' '  baptized  in  the  Jordan  ' '  is  followed  in  verse  eleven  by  ' '  baptize 
in  ivater."  And  here  the  preposition  en  must  undergo  another 
change.  The  "in  the  Jordan"  of  Matt.  iii.  6  must  mean  at  or 
near  the  river  ;  but  the  "  in  water  "  which  almost  immediatelj^  fol- 
lows, and  which,  as  Stuart  says,  "designates  the  River  Jordan," 
means,  not  at  or  near,  but  with  water.  Dr.  Campbell  has  told' 
the  world  that  our  translators,  who  rightty  rendered  Matt.  iii.  6- 


146  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

"  in  the  Jordan,"  ought  consistently  to  have  rendered  Matt,  iii.  11 
"m  water."  We  observe  that  Professors  Andrews  Xorton 
and  George  R.  No^-es,  in  their  translations,  give  in  this  passage 
the  rendering,  "in  water."  The  former  gentleman,  commenting 
on  the  latter  part  of  this  passage,  "He  will  baptize  you  in  the 
Hol^'  Spirit,"  &c.,  says,  "  We  must  recollect  that  the  ancient  mode 
of  baptizing  was  by  plunging  into  water."  "I  am  sorry  to  ob- 
serve," saj's  Dr.  Campbell,  "  that  the  Popish  translators  from  the 
Yulgate  have  shown  greater  veneration  for  the  style  of  that  version 
than  the  generahtj'  of  Protestant  translators  have  shown  for  that 
of  the  original ;  for  in  this  the  Latin  {in  aqua  —  in  spirito  sando) 
is  not  more  exphcit  than  the  Greek.  Yet  so  inconsistent  are  the 
interpreters  last  mentioned,  that  none  of  them  have  scrupled  to 
render  en  to  Jordane,  in  the  sixth  verse,  in  Jordan;  though  nothing 
can  be  plainer  than  that,  if  there  be  any  incongruit}"  in  the  expres- 
sion in  zoater,  this  in  Jordan  must  be  equally  incongruous.  But 
they  have  seen  that  the  preposition  in  could  not  be  avoided  there, 
without  adopting  a  circumlocution,  and  saving  tuith  the  water  of 
Jordan,  which  would  have  made  theu"  deviation  from  the  text  too 
glaring.  The  word  haptizein  (baptize) ,  both  in  sacred  authors  and 
in  classical,  signifies  '  to  dip,'  '  to  plunge,'  '  to  immerse,'  and  was 
rendered  hj  Tertullian,  the  oldest  of  the  Latin  fathers,  tingere,  the 
term  used  for  dj'eing  cloth,  which  was  by  immersion.  It  is  always 
construed  suitably  to  this  meaning  :  thus  it  is  en  hudati  (in  water) , 
en  to  Jordane  (in  Jordan) .  But  I  should  not  lay  much  stress  on 
the  preposition  en,  .  .  .  which  may  denote  laith  as  well  as  in, 
did  not  the  whole  phraseology  in  regard  to  this  ceremonj^  concur 
in  e\'incing  the  same  thing.  .  .  .  When,  therefore,  the  Greek 
word  baptizo  is  adopted,  I  m&j  say,  rather  than  translated,  into 
modern  languages,  the  mode  of  construction  ought  to  be  pre- 
served so  far  as  may  conduce  to  suggest  its  original  import.  It  is 
to  be  regretted  that  we  have  so  much  evidence  that  even  good 
and  learned  men  allow  their  judgments  to  be  warped  b}'  the  sen- 
timents and  customs  of  the  sect  which  they  prefer.  The  true 
partisan,  of  whatever  denomination,  alwaj'S  inchnes  to  correct  the 
diction  of  the  Spirit  by  that  of  the  party."  The  two  phrases, 
"in  the  River  Jordan"  and  "in  water,"  used,  we  may  say, 
by  both  Matthew  and  Mark  (though  Mark's  "  m  water  "  is  doubt- 
ful) ,  in  close  connection,  in  the  same  regimen,  and  meaning  the 


STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM.  '        "         147 

same  tiling,  should  certainlj'  be  treated  alike  :  and  if  John  baptized 
at  or  near  the  Jordan,  then  he  also  baptized  at  or  near  water ; 
or  if  he  baptized  tvith  -water,  then  he  should  also  baptize  tvitJi  the 
Jordan,  yea,  toith  iEnon,  and  even  toith  the  wilderness.  Thus,  as 
we  have  seen,  there  is  not  a  preposition  which  naturally  suits  any 
sprinkling,  pouring,  purifying,  or  influencing  theory.  They  all 
have  to  be  influenced  somewhat  forcibly  out  of  their  primary, 
usual  meaning,  and  made  to  stand  for  something  which  baptizo,  in 
its  primary-,  usual  sense,  not  only  does  not  require,  but  absolutel^' 
forbids  and  repudiates. 

But  does  not  en  in  Hebraistic  Greek  sometimes  mean  by  or  with  ? 
Certainl}'  it  does,  and  it  should  be  so  translated  when  such  trans- 
lation is  necessar}- ;  ^  but  such  cases  are  in  the  New  Testament 
vastl}"  fewer,  as  Winer  and  others  have  shown,  than  was  formerly 
supposed.  The  truth  is,  that  the  in  and  the  with  idea  is  a  closely- 
related  one  in  ever}'  language  ;  so  that  at  times  they  can  be  used 
interchangeabl}' without  greatl}"  altering  the  sense. 

But  shall  we  go  on  trying  to  explain  "clear"  passages  by 
"dark"  ones?  Well,  a  Greek  historian,  perhaps,  might  have 
told  us  that  the  inhabitants  of  Philippi  once  built  a  bridge  in 
the  StrjTQon  River  (in  Latin,  jionteni  fecit  in  fliiviine.  — Xepos), 
The  idea  of  the  phraseology  would  probablj'  be,  that  the  bridge  was 
built  not  only  over  the  river,  as  toe  should  sa^^,  but  in  its  banks 
and  waters.  Again :  we  might  possiblj^  have  read  in  Greek  or 
Eo.mau  history'  that  Brutus  and  Cassius  la}'  an  ambuscade  against 
Antony  in  the  River  Strymon.  Carson  would  locate  this  ambus- 
cade, not  in  the  water  of  the  river,  but  within  its  wooded  and 
sheltered  outer  banks  ;  the  word  "river  "  at  times  standing  for  the 
valle}''  through  which  the  river  runs  (see  1  Kings  XA'ii.  34) .  But 
suppose,  again,  it  were  recorded  that  Paul  baptized  the  household 
of  Lj^dia  and  of  the  jailer  in  the  Strj'mon,  or,  as  some  suggest,  in 
the  Gangas  River  :  would  not  any  one  hesitate  before  interpreting 
this  in  b}'  the  preceding  ' '  dark  ' '  ones  ?     Knowing  that  ' '  baptizo 

1  In  such  examples  as  to  "kill  in  a  sword"  (Rev.  vi.  8),  to  "smite  in  a 
sword"  (Luke  xxii.  49),  perhaps,  to  "trample  tliem  in  their  feet"  (Matt. 
vii.  6),  "in  the  prince  of  the  demons"  (Matt.  ix.  34),  "in  that  man  whom 
he  hath  appointed  "  (Acts  xvii.  31).  Luke,  it  seems,  notwithstanding  "his 
more  Greeklj^  style,"  knows  how  to  use  the  Hehraistic  in  for  xvitli  or  by 
quite  as  well,  if  not  so  often,  as  the  other  writers. 


148  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

demands  intusposition,"  that  the  word  "  river  "  "  naturally  desig- 
nates the  element,"  and  that  in,  and  not  at,  near,  or  over,  is  one 
of  the  prepositions  which  baptismal  intusposition  requires,  and 
that,  in  right  interpretation,  the  literal  meaning  of  words  "  is  not 
to  be  deserted  without  reason  or  necessity',"  would  not  a  candid 
scholar  say,  as  Professor  Stuart  did  in  a  like  case,  that  the  phrase- 
ology "  is  in  favor  of  the  idea  of  immersion  "  ?  And  what  insuper- 
able objection  can  be  urged  against  the  correctness  of  this  idea? 
Well,  the  chief  thing  is,  this  ridiculous  (contemptible)  drowning- 
scarecrow.  Did  C.  Taylor  (the  editor  of  Calmet's  "  Dictionary  of 
the  Bible  "),  who  holds  to  pouring  as  baptism,  yet  does  not  deny 
that  "  plunging  is  one  sense  of  the  term  baptism,"  express  himself 
too  strongly  when  he  declared  that  the  assertion,  "  Baptism  im- 
ports drowning,"  could  only  be  made  b}^  "  some  perverse  sophist  "  ? 
(See  his  "  Apostohc  Baptism,"  p.  122.) 

We  admit,  then,  all  that  our  opponents  demand,  — that  the  name 
of  a  river  is  not  always  equivalent  to  water ;  and  that,  by  Greek 
usage  (explain  it  how  we  will) ,  a  cilj  may  be  said  to  be  in  the  sea, 
and  a  man  or  an  oxraj  may  be  said  to  be  in  a  river,  without  envel- 
oping themselves  in  water,  or  even  wetting  the  soles  of  their  feet, 
—  and  yet  say  that  these  examples  do  not  touch  the  case  of  a 
haptizing  in  a  river  any  more  than  the  case  of  a  drovming  in  a 
river,  and  thus  have  no  weight  whatever  as  against  the  idea  of 
immersion. 

A  few  words  in  regard  to  the  baptism  ' '  in  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
fire  "  (Matt.  iii.  11 ;  Luke  iii.  16).  This  was  the  exalted  Saviour's 
special  and  higher  baptism,  as  distinguished  especially  from  John's 
water-baptism  unto  repentance ;  and  distinguished  also,  we  may 
say,  from  the  baptism  which  Christ  enjoins  in  His  great  commission. 
Many  commentators  (Origen,  Hengstenberg,  Neander,  De  Wette, 
Mej^er,  Lange,  Hackett),  interpreting  this  ^re-baptism  by  the 
"fire  unquenchable  "  of  the  immediateh"  succeeding  verses,  refer 
it  to  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  ;  some  making  it  equivalent  to 
the  "  Gehenna  of  fire."  But  viewed  as  a  purifying  power,  and  in 
its  close  connection  with  "in  the  Holy  Spirit,"  which  connection 
will  explain  the  absence  of  the  preposition,  we  are  rather  inclined 
to  regard  it  as  epexegetical,  or  explanatory-  of  the  Holy  Spirit's 
baptism  as  efiected  b}-  the  great  fire-refiner  foi'etold  b}"  Malachi 
.  (iii.  2,  3),  even  as  the  semblance  of  fire  was  one  of  the  emblems 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  149 

of  the  Spirit  in  the  great  Pentecostal  revival.  John  the  Baptist 
seems  plainly  to  indicate  that  the  same  persons  were  to  be  baptized 
alike  in  both  elements.  "  It  [fire]  is  but  the  fiery  character  of  the 
Spirit's  operation  on  the  soul,  —  searching,  consuming,  refining, 
sublimating,  as  nearly  all  good  interpreters  understand  the  word" 
(David  Brown,  D.D.,  in  "The  Portable  Commentary").  "Of 
this  double  baptism  [in  the  Holy  Spirit  and  (in)  fire]  the  text 
says  nothing  :  it  rather  suggests  a  contrast  between  the  baptism  of 
John  and  that  of  Christ,  each  regarded  as  one  "  ("  The  Speaker's 
Commentary").  "The  close  connection  [of  'fire']  with  what 
precedes,  and  the  actual  appearance  of  '  fire  '  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, favor  a  reference  to  the  powerful  and  purifying  influences  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  "  (Dr.  Schaff,  in  "The  Popular  Commentary  ") . 
"The  miraculous  eflftision  of  the  Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
when  the  abiUty  to  speak  in  unknown  languages  was  convej'ed 
under  the  significant  emblem  of  apparent  fiery  tongues,  was  in- 
tended," &c.  (Professors.  H.  Turner).  "The  antithesis  between 
John's  baptism  and  that  of  the  H0I3"  Spirit  does  not  refer  to  the 
persons  represented  by  you,  but  only  to  the  two  Irinds  of  baptism. 
.  .  .  It  is  not,  '  He  shall  baptize  some  of  you  .  .  .  with  the  Holy 
Spmt,  and  others  of  3"ou  .  .  .  with  fire,'  but  '  He  shall  baptize 
you,'  "  &c.  (Professor  John  J.  Owen).  Matthies  thinks  it  certain, 
from  Acts  i.  5,  that  this  fire  refers  to  the  Spirit,  which  '■'■  totum 
purificans  liominem,  naturam  humanam  darificat,"  &c.  Ewald, 
Olshausen,  and  Alford  take  a  similar  view.  Thomas  Scott  speaks 
of  the  cleansing  iufiuence  of  the  Spirit,  "  as  purif^'ing  water  to 
wash  away  internal  pollutions,  and  as  a  refining  fire  to  consume  all 
their  dross  and  the  remains  of  corrupt  nature."  Bishop  Hopkins 
says,  "Those  that  are  baptized  with  the  Spirit  are,  as  it  were, 
plunged  into  that  heavenly  flame  whose  searching  energy  devours 
aU  their  dross,  tin,  and  base  alloy."  And  Calvin  remarks,  that 
"to  baptize  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire  is  to  confer  the  Holy 
Spirit,  who  in  regeneration  has  the  office  asid  nature  of  fire." 
Chr3'sostom,  among  the  ancients,  held  a  like  view ;  for  he  says, 
"  By  the  addition  of  '  fire  '  he  points  out  the  vehemence  and  effi- 
cacj^  of  the  grace."  Dr.  Dale  would  make  the  "  Great  Purifier," 
who  is  m  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire,  baptize  or  purif}'  the  collective 
body  of  the  Jewish  people  hy  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire  ;  but  with 
him  these  baptizing  agencies  are  whoU}'  diverse,  and  the    "col- 


150  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

lective  body  "  is  divided  into  two  classes,  — tlie  believing  and  the 
impenitent.  The  one  class  the  "Great  Purifier"  baptizes  or 
purifies  by  the  Hol}^  Ghost :  the  other  class  He  "  will  finally  bap- 
tize "  (purif}'?)  "b3'fire."  But  this  kind  of  fire-purification  (for 
the  baptism  considered  here  is  all  purification,  or  none  at  all) 
savors  too  much  of  the  Papal  purgatory  for  Protestant  acceptation. 
Nor  does  our  author  venture  to  say  that  "  the  righteous  Judge  of 
all  will  finally"  purify^  but  only  ^'■baptize,  the  unpenitent"  by 
fire.  We  have  not  the  courage  to  say  that  "  the  outstaring  fact 
as  to  definition  and  translation  in  ever}^  (Pedobaptist)  writer  is 
self-contradiction"  ("Johannic  Baptism,"  p.  183),  Dr.  Dale 
also  makes  the  Holy  Spirit  the  "  executivfe  agent "  of  this  baptism, 
asserting  that  the  apostles  were  baptized  by  rather  than  in  the 
Spirit,  and  objects  to  regarding  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  passive  ele- 
ment in  which  men  were  to  be  placed.  Yet  to  be  "  in  the  Spirit " 
is  to  be  in  no  "  quiescent  medimn,"  and  God's  word  declares  that 
Christ  is  Pie  who  baptizeth  in  the  Spirit  and  fire.  Dr.  Dale's 
explanation  of  the  phrase,  "baptizing  in  the  Spirit,"  as  above 
given,  shows  that  with  him  the  Spirit  is  not  always  a  "  quiescent 
element ;  "  for,  in  his  theory,  "  influence  is  inseparable  from  within- 
ness."  "Nothing  can  more  fully  develop  influence  than  the 
infolding  of  an  object  within  the  influential  agency :  "  and  he  puts 
Chi'ist  the  Baptizer  in  the  Spirit  "  for  the  sake  of  influence  ;  "  in 
other  words,  that  He  might  be  "  invested  with  the  power  of  the 
'Spirit." 

But  what  of  the  baptism  in  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  As  Jesus  himself 
was  pre-eminently  and  peculiarly  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  He  would 
have  his  apostles  and  disciples  too,  in  a  measure,  baptized  in  the 
same  Spirit,  or  immersed  in  the  fulness  of  His  divine  and  wonder- 
working influences.  Dr.  Dale  saj's  that  "  this  phrase  "  (in  the 
Holy  Spirit)  ' '  cannot  denote  a  receptive  element  '  in  '  which  so.uls 
are  to  be  baptized,  because  in  that  case  there  could  be  no  diverse 
baptisms  of  the  Spirit.  All  baptized  in  the  same  element  must 
receive  the  same  baptism,  just  as  all  vegetables  baptized  in  vinegar 
must  receive  the  same  baptism,"  &c.  "All  vegetables,"  how- 
ever, are  not  afi'ected  in  the  same  way  and  to  the  same  extent 
b}'  a  vinegar-baptism.  But,  if  we  could  predicate  sameness  of 
baptism  where  there  is  sameness  of  physical  elements,  we  vaay  not 
be  able  to  do  so  where  "the  element  is  God's   free   Spirit.     The 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  151 

specially-promised  baptism  in  the  Spirit  (the  phrase,  "  baptism  of 
the  Spirit,"  nowhere  appears  in  Scripture)  occurred,  in  the  first  in- 
stance, on  the  da}^  of  Pentecost,  and  also  at  the  conversion  of  the 
Gentiles  (Acts  ii.  1-4,  x.  44-4G).  Some,  also,  find  an  instance  of 
it  recorded  in  Acts  iv.  31.  The  ordinary  renewing  and  sanctify- 
ing operation  of  the  Spirit's  influences  is  never  in  the  Scriptures 
termed  a  baptism  in  the  Spirit.  In  the  Spirit's  baptism  at  the 
Pentecost  there  was  that  which  was  both  audible  and  visible,  —  a 
wind-like  sound,  and  fire-hke  tongues.  Ingham,  in  his  "  Hand- 
book on  Baptism,"  supposes  this  sound  to  have  accompanied  the 
descent  of  the  Spirit  out  of  heaven,  and  that  it  did  not  enter  the 
house.  He  makes  the  fire-appearance  to  be  the  sole  emblem  of 
the  Spirit,  and  holds,  that^  before  it  was  distributed  into  tongues, 
the  company  were  immersed  in  it  as  being  one  mass  or  bod}^,  filling 
all  the  house  where  they  were  sitting.  But,  if  we  follow  the  most 
obvious  construction  of  this  passage,  it  would  appear  to  be  the 
wind-like  "  sound,' ^  the  token  of  the  Spirit's  presence,  which  filled 
all  the  house  ;  the  ' '  sound  ' '  here  being  but  another  name  for  the 
Holy  Spu'it,  in  which  thej"  were  baptized,  and  with  which  the}" 
were  filled.  Our  Pedobaptist  friends,  of  course,  find  a  chief  sup- 
port for  their  sprinkling  baptism  in  the  out-pouring  of  the  Spirit 
which  tookjolace  on  this  occasion.  We  hold  to  a  pouring,  and 
also  to  a  subsequent  immersion,  and  that  the  pouring  was  no  part 
of  the  baptism  proper.  A  person  going  to  bathe  will,  perchance, 
first  pour  water  into  the  bath  ;  yet  no  one  will  conclude  from  this 
that  pouring  is  bathing,  or  bathing  is  pouring,  or  that  pouring  ex- 
cludes bathing.  The  PIol}'  Spirit  was  indeed  poured  out,  and  in 
consequence  the  whole  house  was  filled  with  His  influence,  so  that 
all  assembled  there  were  baptized  in  the  .Spirit ;  and  their  immer- 
sion in  the  Spirit,  which  was  occasioned  b}-  the  Spirit's  coming 
upon  and  flooding  them  with  His  divine  influences,  was  just  as  real 
as  though  they  had  been  actively  intusposed  in  those  influences. 
The  Egj'ptians,  we  may  conceive,  might  have  been  immersed  by 
the  Israelites  in  the  Red  Sea  for" the  purpose  of  destroying  life ; 
but  they  were  no  less  truty  and  fatall}'  immersed  in  its  waters  by 
the  ingulfing  flood  which  overtook  them.  A  man  may  be  im- 
mersed, or  baptized,  i.Q.^put  into  tvater,  bj^an  overwhelming  wave  ; 
but  this  will  not  warrant  any  external  application  of  water-pouring 
or  sprinlding  to  be  a  proper  baptism,  or  a  proper  mode  of  baptism. 


152  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

unless,  indeed,  a  sufficiency  of  water  may  be  poured  or  sprinkled  to 
effect  a  complete  covering. 

But  is  this  baptism  in  the  Spirit  a  blessed  baptism,  in  which  we 
can  in  a  measure  share,  and  from  which  we  would  not  emerge,  but 
would  abide  in  forever  ?  We  are  thankful  that  our  theory  does 
not  necessitate,  in  this  case,  any  "evanescent  dip,"  or  transient 
baptism,  or  brief  immersion.  If  we  would  abide  in  the  Spirit's 
baptism  forever,  and  our  "Great  Baptizer"  would  have  us  to 
abide  in  it  forever,  why  shall  not  this  blessed  baptism  be  an  ever- 
abiding  one  ?  And  in  regard  to  the  expression,  ' '  immersed  in  the 
Holy  Spirit,"  this  is  certainly  no  harsher  phraseology  than  "  poured 
upon  with  the  Holy  Spirit,"  &c.  In  the  Pentecostal  revival  there 
was,  as  we  have  seen,  both  an  outpouring  of  the  Spirit,  and  a 
baptism  in  the  Spirit,  the  former  being  precedent  and  preparatory 
to  the  latter ;  and,  while  both  forms  of  expression  indicate  copi- 
ousness, the  latter  alone  denotes  an  overflowing  abundance. 

Chrysostom,  on  Matt.  iii.  11,  thus  remarks  :  "  He  does  not  say, 
'  Shall  give  you  the  Holy  Ghost,'  but  '  ShaU  baptize  j^ou  in  the 
Holy  Ghost,'  showing  in  metaphor  the  abundance  of  the  grace." 
Theophylact,  remarking  on  Acts  i.  5,  says  (as  quoted  in  Meyer), 
' ' '  Ye  shall  be  baptized  in  the  Holy  Spirit '  signifies  the  Jlood  and 
the  riches  of  the  supply."  The  same  father  also  says,  "The 
word  '  be  baptized '  signifies  the  abundance,  and,  as  it  were,  the 
riches,  of.  the  participation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  also,  in  that  per- 
ceived b}^  the  senses,  he  in  a  manner  has  who  is  baptized  in  water, 
washing  the  whole  body."  And  again:  the  phrase,  "'He  will 
baptize  you  in  the  Holy  Spirit '  [means  that]  He  will  deluge  you 
ungrudgingly  with  the  graces  of  the  Spirit  "  (C.  193,  199).  Cyril, 
bishop  of  Jerusalem,  says,  "  Not  in  part  the  grace,  but  all-sufficing 
the  power !  For  as  he  who  sinks  down  in  the  waters,  and  is  bap- 
tized, is  surrounded  on  all  sides  b}'  the  waters,  so  also  they  were 
completely  baptized  by  the  Holy  Spirit  "  (C.  180) .  And  speaking 
of  the  ' '  sound  ' '  of  the  Spirit  (as  of  a  rushing  mighty  'wind) , 
which  Jilled  all  the  house  where  the^^  were  sitting,  he  says,  "  The" 
house  was  made  the  receptacle  of  the  spiritual  water.  The  disciples 
sat  within,  and  the  whole  house  was  filled.  They  were,  therefore, 
completely  baptized  according  to  the  promise"  (Dale,  "Christie 
Baptism,"  556).  "To  baptize  is  to  immerse,  and  in  this  sense 
the  apostles  are  truly  said  to  be  baptized  ;  for  the  house  in  which 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  153 

this  was  done  was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  so  that  the  apostles 
seem  to  be  plunged  into  it"  (Casaubon).  "  Jf  filled  all  the 
house.  This  is  that  which  our  Saviour  calls  baptizing  the  apostles 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  they  who  sat  in  the  house  were,  as  it 
were,  immersed  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  they  who  were  baptized 
with  water  were  OA^erwhelmed  and  covered  all  over  with  water  ; 
which  is  the  proper  notion  of  baptism ' '  (Archbishop  Tillotson) . 
Professor  Stuart,  on  Matt.  iii.  11  ("  He  shall  baptize  3'ou,"  &c.), 
sa^'s,  "  He  will  make  a  copious  effusion  of  His  Spirit  upon  a  part 
of  you;  and  another  part  —  viz.,  the  finally  unbelieving  and  im- 
penitent—  He  will  surround  with  flames,  or  plunge  into  the  flames. 
Or  perhaps  baptizing  with  fire  ma}^  have  reference  to  the  descent 
of  the  Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  there  appeared  to 
the  apostles  cloven  tongues  as  it  v^ere  of  fire,  and  it  rested  upon 
every  one  of  them."  Robinson,  in  his  Lexicon,  defines  the  phrase, 
"  baptize  in  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire,"  as  meaning  "  to  overwhelm, 
richly  furnish  with  all  spiritual  gifts,  or  overwhelm  with  fire  un- 
quenchable." And,  finally,  a  recent  writer  in  "The  Congrega- 
tionalist,"  Rev.  N.  G.  Clark,  D.D.,  speaking  of  the  Pentecostal 
baptism,  says,  "Ten  days  of  waiting  passed,  and  the  promised 
baptism  came,  fioocUng  their  minds  and  hearts  with  light  and  jo}*, 
and  holy  inspiration  for  their  high  commission."  Surel}^  others 
than  Baptists  have  uttered  correct  \T.ews  of  the  baptism  in  the 
Holy  Spirit ;  at  least,  when  they  have  not  been  engaged  in  con- 
troversy. 


154        -  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

BAPTIZO   WITHOUT   THE   PREPOSITIONS. 

"I  indeed  baptize  you  (in)  water.  ...  He  will  baptize  you  in  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  (in)  fire."  —  Luke  iii.  16. 

SIX  times  in  the  Gospels,  and  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  is  John's 
water-baptism  contrasted  with  Chiist's  Holy  Spirit  (and  fire) 
baptism  ;  and  in  three  of  these  instances,  if  not  four  (Luke  iii.  16  ; 
Acts  i.  5,  xi.  16  ;  and  probably  Mark  i.  8),  the  word  for  water  is 
in  the  dative  case  without  a  preposition.  This  simple  or  "instru- 
mental "  dative,  as  it  is  frequentl}'  called,  is  usuallj^  rendered  with; 
and,  as  we  do  not  so  commonly  speak  of  immersing  tvith  as  sprin- 
kling with,  this  fact  alone  of  the  use  of  the  "  instrumental  dative" 
with  baptizo  wholly  offsets  its  natural  ease  of  construction  with  the 
prepositions,  and  to  man}^  persons  it  has  been  the  decisive  proof  that 
baptism  is  not  immersion.  It  is  further  alleged,  in  confirmation 
of  this  view,  that  the  three  examples,  according  to  our  received 
text,  all  occur  in  the  writings  of  LulvC,  whose  style  of  Greek  com- 
position is  supposed  to  be  purer  than  that  of  Matthew  and  John, 
w^ho,  instead  of  this  "  instrumental  dative,"  employ  the  Hebraistic 
"m  water,"  but  in  the  same  sense  as  Luke's  ^^  with  water." 
Hence  the  triumphant  tone  of  assurance  in  Dale's  assertion  that 
"  the  simple  dative  with  haptizo  announces  with  authority  the 
presence  of  agenc}',  and  not  of  element."  And  Dr.  Hodge  also 
affirms  that  "to  be  baptized  hudati  cannot  possiblj' mean  to  be 
immersed  i?i' water."  All  this  looks  and  sounds  plausible,  and 
even  formidable  ;  but  perhaps  the  look  and  the  sound  are  all  w.e 
have  to  fear. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  this  simple  dative  in  connection  with  hap- 
tizo occurs  only  in  those  passages  where  water  is  contrasted  with 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  155 

the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  that  occurring,  as  in  our  textus  receptus, 
alwaj'^s  with  the  same  pecuhar  phraseology,  and  in  the  writings 
of  one  person,  it  ma}^  be  said  that  there  is  really  but  one  instance 
of  such  use  of  the  dative  in  the  New  Testament.  Again :  since 
the  preposition  en  with  the  dative  occurs  in  all  other  instances 
where  this  phraseology  is  used,  if  we  suppl}'  in  thought  an}'  prepo- 
sition with  this  simple  dative,  that  preposition  must  be  en.  So 
De  "Wette,  in  his  "  Handbuch,"  explains  hudati  of  Luke  iii.  16 
by  en  hudati  (in  water)  of  Matt,  iii,  11.  TViner,  on  the  "inter- 
change, &c.,  of  the  prepositions,"  saj'S,  "Sometimes  we  find  iu 
parallel  phrases  a  preposition  now  inserted,  now  omitted,  as  (1  Pet. 
iv.  1,  Acts  i.  5,  Matt.  iii.  11,  &c.),  suffering  (with)  flesh,  and  suffer- 
ing in  flesh;  baptize  (with)  water,  and  baptize  in  water."  The 
sense  is  not  affected  by  this  difference;  but  the  two  were  originally 
conceived  of  diff'erentl}'.  Suffering  (with)  the  flesh  is  suffering  bj^ 
means  of  the  body,  while  suffering  in  the  flesh  is  suffering  in  the 
bod}'.  Baptizein  en  hudati  is  to  baptize  in  water  (eintauchend, 
immersing)  :  haptizein  hudati  is  to  baptize  loith  water.  The  iden- 
tity in  sense  here  and  in  most  other  passages  is  obvious.  Fur- 
thermore, we  have  seen  that  Luke  uses  in  Hebraistically  for  tvitJi, 
as  well  as  the  other  writers  ;  and  he  could  have  so  used  it  here, 
notwithstanding  any  imagined  purity  of  his  stjde.  As  the  matter 
now  stands,  whatever  be  the  reason  for  Luke's  choice  of  phi'ase- 
ology,  the  two  forms  of  expression  mean  substantially  the  same 
thing.  The  immersing  elements  are  strongl}'  contrasted  in  both 
cases,  but  more  distinctly  and  instrumentcdly,  it  may  be,  in  Luke 
than  in  Matthew  and  John.  These  would  make  John  sa}',  "  I  bap- 
tize in  loater :  the  Coming  One  will  baptize  in  the  Hoi}'  Spirit." 
Luke,  perhaps,  would  make  him  sa}',  "  I  baptize  b}'  means  of,  mak- 
ing rise  of,  water:"  or,  "I  baptize  loith  water;  but  the  Coming 
One  will  baptize  in  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire." 

What  we  contend  for  here  is,  that  even  if  the  element  should 
or  must  be  viewed  instrumentally,  and  if  haptizo  hudati  must  be 
rendered  baptize  with  water  (for  which  rendering,  as  we  shall  see, 
there  is  no  neecssit}') ,  still  the  with  does  not  exclude  the  in.  Such 
a  phrase  as  "  immersed  by  (or  with)  grief,"  says  the  re^^ewer  of 
"  Classic.  Baptism,"  in  "  The  New-Englander,"  "  is  in  accordance 
with  Greek  idiom,  which  treats  the  iramei'sing  element  as  the  means 
rather  than  the  j^^^ce  of  immersion."     And  Dr.  Dale  more  than 


156  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

once  concedes  that  agency  is  compatible  with  immersion  ;  that  with 
or  hy  is  compatible  with  in.  Thus  he  says,  "  The  tempering  [of 
metals]  is  hy  water  and  hy  oil,  whether  it  be  in  water  or  in 
oil,  or  otherwise."  Of  certain  words  in  the  nude  ablative,  used 
in  connection  with  mersor,  he  says,  "Although  representing  a 
fluid  element  [they]  do  not  represent  the  element  in  which,  but 
the  means  b}'  which,  the  mersion  takes  place."  And,  "  in  general, 
.  .  .  the  ablative,  in  all  cases  of  influence-mersion,  represents 
the  agencj^  bj-  which,  and  not  the  element  in  which,  the  mer- 
sion takes  place."  As,  now,  the  Latin  nude  ablative  does  not 
forbid  a  "mersion,"  even  when  agency  is  represented,  so  the 
Greek  nude  dative  does  not  forbid  the  intusposition  requii'ed  by 
haptizo,  even  when  means  or  instrument  is  represented.  Thus, 
though  ' '  mersion  by  water  and  mersion  in  water  are  two  vastly' 
different  statements,"  j'et  b}^  Dr.  Dale's  help  we  can  make  them 
happily  "agree  in  one."  Yv'^heh  Archbishop  Tillotsou  sa^'s  that 
' '  the}'  who  were  baptized  ivith  water  were  overwhelmed  and  cov- 
ered all  over  with  water,"  or  when  Bishop  Hopkins  affirms  that 
"those  that  are  baptized  icith  the  Spu'it  are,  as  it  were,  plunged 
into  that  heavenly*  flame,"  will  any  one  contend  that  the  water 
and  Spirit  here  cannot  be  regarded  as  elements?  that  the  water, 
for  example,  being  regarded  as  a  means  or  instrument,  must  be 
applied  b}-  hand,  and  that  the  ivith  excludes  the  in  ?  The  phrase 
"baptized  or  immersed  in  water"  would  certainl}'  be  the  more 
common  and  natural  expression :  but  the  archbishop  was  contrast- 
ing the  two  baptismal  elements,  water  and  spirit ;  and  so  he  uses 
the  witJi,  or  our  English  "dative  of  instrument."  Can  we  not, 
under  similar  circumstances,  just  as  well  speak  of  baptizing  or 
immersing  with  water,  as  we  can,  and  sometimes  do,  of  hurying 
with  water? 

We  have  elsewhere  observed  that  these  two  prepositions,  with 
and  in,  are  kindred  in  meaning,  and  in  all  languages  can  at  times 
be  used  interchangeabl}',  with  but  slight  difference  of  meaning. 
Thus  we  can  speak  of  our  Saviour's  coming  in  or  with  clouds  of 
glor}-,  &c.  We  can  sa}'  clad  in  or  with,  enveloped  in  or  with, 
drenched  in  or  with,  bm'ied  in  or  with,  soaked  in  or  with,  drovmed 
in  or  with ;  and  many  other  words  construe  equally  well  with  in 
or  ivith,  and  the  with  in  no  case  precludes  the  in.  With  man^' 
Pedobaptists  the  term  "  wash  "  is  a  favorite  s3'non3'me  for  haptizo, 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  157 

since  it  allows  of  different  "  modes,"  or  diverse  forms,  of  action. 
Still  no  one  maintains  that  a  washing  v:ith  water  precludes  a 
washing  in  water.  So  we  can  say,  covered  in  and  by,  buried  in 
and  by,  whelmed  in  and  by,  baptized  in  and  b}',  immersed  in  and 
by  (but  not  sprinkled  in  and  b}')  ;  and  the  by,  like  the  vjith,  does 
not  exclude  the  in.  If  we  should  ask  a  blacksmith  hoiv  he  tempers 
iron,  he  would  probably  say,  "  By  putting  it  in  water."  If  asked 
what  element  he  uses  in  tempering  iron,  or  with  what  he  tempers 
iron,  he  would  be  likel}^  to  repty,  "  I  temper  it  with  water."  And 
the  ivith  in  this  case  would  not  exclude  the  in.  The  word  taufen, 
in  German,  means  to  immerse  ;  j^et  in  Luther's  version  we  have 
taufen  mit  wasser  (to  immerse  toith  water) ,  because  the  element 
of  water  is  contrasted  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  Still  this  mit  or  with 
(our  nude  dative  or  ablative  of  instrument)  does  by  no  means 
necessarily  preclude  an  immersion.  Take  the  Latin,  nato  cequore 
(I  swim  i7i  water)  :  the  verb  requires  a  good  degree  of  intuspo- 
sition,  and  we  render  cequore  as  above,  notwithstanding  its  look 
of  '■'■  instrumental  ablative."  So  TertuUian's  ^wmwie  diluatur 
(washed  [in]  the  river)  is  followed  by  his  in  Jordane  tinxit 
(dipped  in  the  Jordan)  ;  and,  had  this  in  been  omitted,  the  verb 
tinxit  would  still  have  required  intusposition.  There  is  a  class  of 
words  which  "demand  intusposition,"  such  as  mergo,  demergo,  or 
tingo,  in  Latin,  kataduo,  bapto,  baptizo.,  in  Greek ;  and  the  simple 
ablative  or  dative  after  them  must  generally  be  regarded  as  local 
rather  than  instrumental.  Mergere.,  whether  in  aquam,  in  aqua., 
or  aqua,  demands  intusposition  in  water  in  the  last  form  as  well  as 
the  first.  Such  examples  in  the  classics  as  "  nee  me  deus  tequore 
mersit,"  "  aqua  languida  mergi,"  and  the  like,  do,  for  certain,  in- 
volve the  idea  of  intusposition  in  water.  The  "  ter  merge ndus 
aqua  est"  of  Ambrose  imports  that  the  candidate  is  to  be  thrice 
immersed .  (in)  water.  The  ' '  plebs  sere  alieno  demersa  ' '  of  Livy 
is  the  exact  counterpart  of  Plutarch's  "  ophlemasi  bebaptisme- 
non ;  "  i.e.,  "  over  head  and  ears  "  in  debt,  or  overwhelmed  luith 
debt.  "Wlio  will  sa}'  that  this  "with"  antagonizes  the  idea  of 
immersion?  Gregor}',  presbj'ter  of  Antioch,  as  quoted  b}'  Chr3-stal 
(p.  80),  represents  Jesus  as  sa3ing  to  John  the  Baptist,  "De- 
merge me  .Jordanicis  fluentis  his  quemadmodum  quffi  me  genuit 
infantilibus  involvit  pannis  ;  "  that  is,  "  Sinlc  me  (in)  or  cover  me 
in  (or  with)  the  floods  of  the  Jordan,  as  she  who  bore  me  wrapped 


158  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

me  in  the  clothes  of  infancy."  Here  certainly  is  intusposition 
in  company  with  the  seeming  "ablative  of  instrument."  Virgil 
("  Georgics,"  i.  246),  speaking  of  the  two  constellations  called 
the  "Bears,"  says,  "  Oceani  metuentes  sequore  tingi."  "They 
fear ' '  —  what  ?  Is  mquore  in  the  instrumental  ablative  ?  and  does 
tingo  (TertuUian's  favorite  word  for  haptizo)  here  mean  to  tinge, 
"  tinct,"  or  dye?  and  do  the  "  bears  "  indeed  fear  to  be  dyed  with 
the  waters  of  the  hlue  ocean?  Only  one  who  had  a  "  theory-  "  to 
support  would  sa}"  this.  No  ;  the  verb  in  its  literal  sense  ' '  demands 
intusposition  : ' '  the  noun  ' '  natural^  denotes  the  element ; ' '  and 
its  ablative  form,  even  without  the  preposition  in,  does  not  forbid 
the  immersion.  And  Virgil,  instead  of  saying  that  the  "bears" 
never  sink  below  the  horizon,  says,  in  the  language  of  poetry,  that 
the}'  fear  to  be  dipped  in  the  ocean.  So  of  the  constellation  Bootes 
it  is  said  that  at  evening  it  is  scarcely'  dipped  (in)  the  deep  ocean  : 
"alto  mergitur  oceano."  Does  not  this  mersing,  even  with  the 
nude  ablative,  involve  the  idea  of  a  physical  enveloping  in  water? 
Let  us  for  a  moment  imagine  the  piscina,  or  font,  of  Constantine's 
Baptistery  at  Rome,  twenty-five  feet  in  diameter  and  three  in  depth, 
to  be  full  of  water,  and  that  our  author,  taking  his  stand  beside  it 
for  the  purpose  of  administering  a  patristic  baptism,  addresses  the 
candidate  in  the  words  inscribed  on  its  base  :  "  Mergere,  peccator, 
sacropurgante  fluento  "  ("  Immerse  thyself,  sinner,  (in)  this  sacred, 
purifjing  flood  " ) .  Had  the  author  of  the  ' '  Inquir}- ' '  used  the 
phrase  in  fluent um  (into  the  flood) ,  he  would,  as  we  well  know, 
have  bidden  the  sinner  to  drown  himself;  but,  in  the  absence  of 
that  phrase,  what  can  we  suppose  that  Dr.  Dale  expected  this 
peccator  to  do?  "  Use,"  says  Carson,  "  is  the  sole  arbiter  of  lan- 
guage ;  and  whatever  is  agreeable  to  this  authority  stands  justified 
bej'Ond  impeachment." 

If,  now,  it  can  be  shown  from  usage  that  bapto,  haptizo,  and 
words  of  like  import,  demanding  intusposition,  are  followed  by  the 
local  "  simple  dative  "  of  element,  our  work,  as  far  as  this  matter 
is  concerned,  is  done,  and  our  opponents'  utterances  in  regard  to 
the  '•'' instrumental  dative  "  with  haptizo  are  but  wasted  breath. 
It  so  happens  that  we  need  not  go  beyond  Professor  Conant's 
Examples  to  find  the  needed  argument  which  shall  ' '  put ' '  our  op- 
ponents "  down."  These  examples  we  shall  take  from  classic  and 
patristic  use.     "That  the  Greek  fathers,"  sa3's  Professor  Stuart, 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  159 

"  understood  the  usual  import  of  baptizo^  would  hardl}-  seem  capable 
of  denial."  And  he  intimates  that  the  same  was  true  of  the 
Latin  fathers  who  were  familiar  with  the  Greek.  And  does  anj' 
one  doubt  that  Christian  baptism,  in  the  minds  of  the  Church 
fathers,  involved  the  act  of  intusposition  in  water?  If  so,  let  him 
read  but  sect.  5  of  "  Baptizein,"  — where  are  collected  some  sixt}' 
examples  of  usage  of  the  Church  fathers,  "  to  which,"  saj's  Pro- 
fessor Conaut,  "  man}' others  of  the  same  tenor  might  be  added,"  — 
and,  if  a  candid  person,  he  will  sa}'  with  Professor  Stuart,  "  Plainly, 
the  churches  of  Christ  from  a  xerj  early  period  construed  the  word 
baptizo  in  the  New  Testament  as  meaning  immersion."  That  the 
"  fathers  "  made  much  of  Christian  baptism,  we  ha^'e  already*  seen  ; 
but  even  they  knew  how  to  distinguish  between  the  act  and  the 
effect,  which  is  more  than  some  recent  writers  have  done.  Tertul- 
lian,  in  repl}^  to  Quintilla,  — a  woman-preacher  at  Carthage,  who 
held,  with  Dr.  Dale,  that  water-baptism  is  unnecessary,  and  that 
faith  alone  is  a  sufficient  sacrament,  — saj's,  "As  of  baptism  itself 
there  is  a  bodily  (or  ph^'sical)  act,  that  we  are  immersed  in  water 
(in  aqua  mergimur)  ;  and  a  spiritual  effect,  that  we  are  freed  from 
sins"  (C.  209).  So  C_yril  of  Jerusalem  says,  "Man's  nature  is 
twofold,  —  soul  and  body  ;  twofold  also  in  his'  cleansing,  —  the 
spiritual  for  the  spiritual,  the  material  for  the  bod}'.  The  water 
cleanses  the  bod}':  the  Spirit  seals  his  soul."  The  oft-recurring 
phrases,  "sinking  down  and  coming  up,"  the  '■'•  insiiiking^'  and 
"  inburying  "  in  water,  which  they  use  as  explanatory'  adjuncts  of 
the  baptismal  act,  are  alone  sufficient  to  explode  anj  mere  "  com- 
pendium "  or  "  influence  "  theory  of  baptism.  We  come,  then,  to 
this  argument  of  the  "simple  dative,"  with  the  certainty  that 
baptizo  with  the  fathers,  as  in  the  classics,  involved  intusposition. 
That  baptizo  with  the  simple  dative  implies  a  physical  envelop- 
ment is  rendered  altogether  probable  by  comparing  Exs.  73,  76, 
with  72,  75,  of  Conant's  "Baptizein,"  where,  in  the  latter  in- 
stances, the  soul  is  said  to  be  baptized  (en)  in  the  bod}',  while  in 
the  former  it  is  baptized  (in)  the  body  (the  nude  dative  b£ing 
used) .  So,  in  Ex.  78,  the  sword  is  baptized  (in)  the  throat ;  while 
in  68  (77)  it  is  baptized  into  the  throat  or  breast.  In  reference 
to  these  examples.  Professor  Conaut  says,  "  What  is  enclosed 
in  the  human  body  is  immersed  i7i  (not  tvith)  it :  a  weapon  is 
plunged  m  (not  with)  the  neck."     Another  instance  of  the  local 


160  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

simple  dative  is  seen  in  Ex.  125:  "The  congregation  baptized 
(in)  ignorance,  and  unwilling  to  emerge,"  &c.  This  cannot  mean 
"  imbued  with  ignorance,  but  whelmed,  immersed  in  it ;  "  else  there 
could  be  no  possible  emersion.  In  one  Example  (121  ;  compare  also 
120)  a  city  is  baptized  (in)  sleep,  Vv^hile  other  Examples  (118, 
119)  speak  of  a  baptism  into  sleep.  A  still  more  decisive  example 
is  the  word  kataduo  (to  sink),  with  the  simple  or  so-caUed  "in- 
strumental" dative  (C.  185).  "  When  we  sink  our  heads  down 
(in)  the  water  as  in  a  kind  of  tomb,  the  old  man  is  buried,  and, 
sinking  down,  is  all  concealed  at  once  :  then,  when  we  emerge,  the 
new  man  comes  up  again."  ^     Here  we  have  indisputably  a  case 


1  The  writer  in  Smith's  Dictionary  of  Christian  Antiquities,  referring 
to  this  passage  of  Clirysostom  (p.  161),  says,  without  regard  to  Dr.  Dale's 
views  or  feelings,  "  Thrice  dipping  the  head  while  standing  in  the  water 
was  the  all  but  universal  rule  of  the  Church  in  early  times."  To  think  of 
dipping  as  baptism,  and  only  "  the  head  "  at  that!  Yet  the  ancient  writers 
often  speak  of  dipping  the  head  in  baptism,  Jerome  says,  "Jn  lavacro  ter  ca- 
put mergitave"  ("to  immerse  the  head  thrice  in  the  bath").  So  Augustine: 
"  Tertio  capita  vestra  in  sacra  fonte  demersimus''''  ("We  immersed  your  heads 
thrice  in  the  sacred  font " ).  Lingard  also,  describing  the  mode  of  baptism  in 
the  Anglo-Saxon  Church,  says,  "  He"  (the  candidate)  "  then  descended  into 
the  font:  the  priest  depressed  his  head  three  times  below  the  surface! "  &c. 
(See  Conant's  Baptizein,  p.  140.)  If  the  administrators  of  the  ordinance 
in  the  early  churches  used  the  formula  of  the  modern  Greek  Church,  —  "This 
servant  of  God  is  baptized,"  &c.,  — this  would  furnish  a  partial  relief  to  Dr. 
Dale.  John  the  Baptist,  v/e  are  sorry  to  say,  could  not  use  this  convenient 
formula  with  all  its  permissive  concomitants,  since,  according  to  Dale,  he 
alone  was  commissioned  to  baptize;  and  this  prohibited  the  people  from 
walking  down  into  the  water,  and  thus  immersing  a  part  of  themselves.  Dr. 
Dale  intimates  in  many  places  that  a  mere  touching  of  the  head,  without 
any  dipping  of  it,  effects  a  baptism;  and,  in  conflrmation  of  this  view,  he 
quotes  John  of  Damascus  as  saying,  "  John  was  baptized  by  putting  his 
hand  upon  the  divine  head  of  his  Master,  and  by  his  own  blood."  Gregory 
Thaumaturgus  also  represents  John  as  saying  to  Jesus,  in  the  Jordan  bap- 
tism, "  Sink  me  in  the  waters  of  the  Jordan.  .  .  .  O  Lord!  baptize  me  the 
Baptist.  .  .  .  Crown  by  Thy  touch  my  head,"  &c.  Yery  likely  the  "patrists" 
might  have  deemed  the  effucacy  of  the  Saviour's  touch  equivalent  to  that  of 
baptism ;  but  this  does  not  not  explain  the  ancient  custom  of  laying  the  hand 
on  the  head  in  baptizing.  Most  of  the  old  frescos  represent  John's  hand  as 
resting  on  the  head  of  Jesus,  while  He  stands  nude  and  waist-deep  in  the 
water.  Dr.  Dale  objects  to  the  idea  that  the  hand  "  was  put  upon  the  head 
to  press  it  down  into  the  water."  But  this  was  the  usual  "mode"  of 
ancient  baptizing.      Bunsen,  in  his  Hippolytus  and  his  Age,  speaks  of  a 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  161 

of  the  simple  dative  of  element,  and  not  of  agency.  One  instance 
of  the  simple  dative  with  bapto  (to  dip)  is  found  in  Ex.  228. 
"  Simon  also,  the  Magian,  once  came  to  the  bath  (loutron).  He 
was  baptized^  but  he  was  not  enlightened  ;  and  the  body  indeed  he 
dipped  (in)  water,  but  the  heart  he  did  not  enlighten  by  the  Spirit. 
And  the  body  went  down  indeed,  and  came  up  (anebe)  ;  but  the 
soul  was  not  buried  with  Christ,  nor  was  raised  with  Him."  The 
Oxford  translation  gives  the  same  rendering  to  soma  ebapsen  7iu- 
dati;  to  wit,  "His  bod}' he  dipped  in  water."  I  would  like  to 
have  Drs.  Hodge  and  Dale  stop  here,  at  this  utterance  of  CjTil, 
Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  and  reiterate,  if  they  can,  their  asseverations 
in  regard  to  the  instrumental  dative.  For  Cp'il  here  assuredly 
could  not  mean  that  the  Magician  dyed  his  bod}'  with  water  (though 
Dr.  Dale  asserts,  without  qualification,  that  bapto  with  a  nude  da- 
tive means,  not  "  dip  m,"  but  "  dyed  by)  :  nor  does  he  mean  that 
he  washed  his  body  with  water  outside  the  bath ;  for  that  body 
"  went  down  "  in  the  bath  or  water  (was  "  buried  ") ,  and  "  came 
up."  Certainly  Dr.  Dale  could  not  deny  that  here  was  a  case  of 
bodily  "  intusposition  without  influence,"  and — what  to  him  is  so 
abhorrent  —  that  baptism  and  dipping  are  here  regarded  as  equiva- 
lent terms. -^    We  produce  but  one  example  more  (C.  229)  where 


Coptic  canon  or  Alexandrian  constitution  which  says  that  the  baptizer 
"shall  lay  his  hand  on  the  head"  of  the  candidate,  "  dipping  him  three 
tiraes."  Dr.  Brenner,  describing  the  ancient  mode  of  baptism,  says  (p.  12) 
that  the  administrator  places  his  hand  on  the  head  or  neck  of  the  candidate, 
and  thus  bows  his  head  under  the  water,  and  refers  for  illustration  to  the 
fabulous  account  of  Constantine's  baptism  by  Pope  Sylvester:  "  Cum  Sil- 
vester ejus  caput  tetigisset  et  eum  in  aquam  immersisset,"  &c. ;  that  is, 
"When  Sylvester  had  touched  his  head,  and  had  immersed  him  in  water,"'  &c. 
An  old  hymn  of  the  Antioch- Jerusalem  Liturgy  says,  "  Good  was  our  Sav- 
iour's word  which  He  spake  to  John,  'Place  thy  right  hand  on  My  head, 
and  baptize  Me.'  John  feared,  and  shrank  back,  seeing  the  river  burn  with 
a  flame  of  fire  abiding  in  it,  and  held  back  his  hand  ti'embling,"  &c. 

1  Dr.  Dale  renders  Strabo's  chole  bebamenois  o'istois,  arrows  Imbued  with 
gall,  and  Aristophanes'  baptousi  tJiermo,  they  wash  (the  wool)  v:ith  warm 
water;  and  he  asks,  "Of  what  use  is  it  for  a  controversialist  to  translate 
baptousi  thermo,  '  they  dip  into  warm  water'  ?  "  But  was  Professor  Stuart  a 
(Baptist)  "controversialist"  when  he  rendered  Aristophanes,  "They  dip  the 
wool  i?r  warmAvater;"  and  Strabo,  "Dipped  in  the  gall  of  serpents"  ?  (See 
Bib.  Eepository,  vol.  iii.  p.  316.)  According  to  the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  we  have 
bapse  hudati  in  Luke  xvi.  24.     Will  Dr.  Dale  render  this,  "that  he  may 


162  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

the  simple  dative  occurs  with  haptizo.  Chrysostom  says,  "  Christ 
called  His  cross  and  death  a  baptism,  because  by  it  He  cleansed 
the  world ;  and  not  because  of  this  only,  but  also  because  of  the 
facihty  of  the  resurrection.  For  as  he  who  is  baptized  (in)  water 
rises  again  with  great  ease,  not  at  all  hindered  by  the  nature  of  the 
waters,  so  also  -He,  having  gone  down  into  death.,  with  greater  ease 
came  up:  for  this  cause  He  calls  it  baptism,"  &c.  Is  there  now 
left  in  the  minds  of  any  a  single  doubt  that  the  simple  dative  with 
haptizo  may  denote  the  recei^dng  element,  rather  than  agency?  or 
that,  in  case  of  contrast  of  elements,  it  may  denote  both  the  means 
and  the  element  of  immersion  ?  The  argument  in  favor  of  sprin- 
kling and  pouring,  derived  from  the  use  of  haptizo  with  the  "  nude 
dative  of  instrument,"  is  indeed  sometimes  put  forth  with  great 
confidence,  and  is  doubtless  emploj^ed  with  considerable  j)opular 
effect,  but,  when  carefully  examined,  is  found  to  have  no  weight, 
and  proves  nothing  against  immersion. 


wash  tlie  tip  of  his  finger  with  water,"  or  "  that  he  may  dye  the  tip  of  his 
finger  with  water  "  ?  There  are  three  possible  versions  of  Virgil's  lines, 
alii  stridentia  tingunt  ^ra  laeu,  which  Dr.  Dale  might  accept;  namely: 
Some  wash  the  hissing  brass  with  the  trough;  or,  Some  tinct  (tinge)  the 
hissing  brass  with  the  trough  ;  or,  Some  temper  the  hissing  brass  with 
the  trough.  A  "controversialist"  (?)  like  Theodore  Alois  Buckley,  in 
"  the  Works  of  Yirgil  literally  translated,"  would  render  it,  "  Some  dip  the 
sputtering  brass  in  the  trough."  The  world,  we  think,  would  prefer  the 
renderings  of  a  "controversialist." 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  163 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

BAPTISM   OF  THE   MULTITUDES   BY   JOHN. 

"Then  went  out  to  him  Jerusalem  and  all  Judsea,  and  all  the  region 
about  the  Jordan,  and  were  baptized  by  him  in  the  (River)  Jordan."  — 
Matt.  iii.  5,  6. 

OUR  friends  find  any  amount  of  difficulties  insuperable,  and 
amounting  to  impossibilit}^,  against  the  idea  of  John's  im- 
mersing such  immense  multitudes  in  the  limited  time  of  his  active 
ministry,  and  not  much  less  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  simple 
matter  of  baptismal  clothing.  Eighteen  months  is  about  the 
longest  period  assigned  to  John's  public  ministry ;  and  a  part  of 
that  time  he  was  shut  up  in  a  prison  in  Macherus,  beyond  the 
Jordan.  And  then  the  numbers  baptized,  according  to  Messrs. 
Cooke  and  Towne,  Wolff,  and  Hutchings,  could  not  be  Idss  than 
five  hundred  thousand.  Mr.  Thorn  of  England  runs  the  number 
up  as  high  as  two  millions  ;  and  Dr.  Hibbard  of  the  Methodist 
Church  assumes  that  "John,  in  all,  baptized  three  millions  of 
persons."  Methinks,  in  this  latter  case,  the  method  suggested  by 
Dr.  Guise  would  have  been  expedient:  to  wit,  "the  people  stood 
in  ranks  near  to  or  just  within  the  edge  of  the  river ;  and  John, 
passing  along  before  them,  cast  water  upon  their  heads  or  faces 
with  his  hands,  or  some  proper  instrument,"  &c.  We  onl}'  hope 
that  Our  Saviour  was  not  thus  baptized  with  others  "in  ranks," 
or  with  any  "instrument."  Mark  mentions,  that,  on  occasion 
of  the  miraculous  feeding,  the  people  sat  down  "  in  ranks  ;  "  and 
John  saj^s  that  the  Saviour  used  a  ' '  basin ' '  for  washing  His  dis- 
ciples' feet.  Other  modes  and  "instruments,"  doubtless,  are 
spoken  of  in  the  Gospels  :  but  none  of  these  things  are  referred  to 
in  connection  with  John's  baptizing  ;  and  we  may  suppose  that  he 


164  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

dispensed  with  them  all,  as  being  unnecessary,  and  not  suited  to 
the  dignit}'  of  the  occasion.  But  our  friejids  find  manj^  and  great 
difficulties  in  the  idea  of  John's  immersing  such  vast  numbers. 
"To  have  immersed  one  every  minute,"  say  Messrs.  Cooke  and 
Towne,  "he  must  have  stood  breast-high  in  the  water  everyday 
for  nearly  two  years.  .  .  .  We  are  fully  satisfied  that  he  could 
not  have  immersed  eighty  thousand."  (We  wish  Messrs.  Cooke 
and  Towne  had  also  estimated  how  many  individuals,  during  the 
same  time,  could  have  made  confession  of  sins,  and  have  been 
sprialded  "  into  repentance,  and  into  faith  of  the  coming  Messiah," 
—  not  in  crowds,  with  switch  or  broom,  but  separately,  with  pro- 
nunciation of  formula  in  each  case.  For  our  part,  we  think  that 
nearly  as  manj^  could  have  been  immersed,  provided  the  baptizer 
did  not  lead  the  candidates  in  and  out  of  the  water.)  Mr.  Hutch- 
ings  says,  "  To  have  immersed  so  many  in  that  time  would  have 
been  more  than  two  every  minute  for  eight  hours  a  day  for  that 
whole  period ;  which  I  venture  to  pronounce  a  simple  impossi- 
bility. No  man  could  have  strength  to  do  it;  and,  besides,  just 
think  of  him  as  standing  waist-deep  in  the  river  eight  hours  a  day 
for  eighteen  months  together  !  The  baptism  b}^  John  of  all  these 
multitudes  hj  immersion  was  just  an  impossibility.  That,  then, 
is  one  thing  about  baptism  which  I  regard  as  settled.  It  could  not 
have  been  done  without  a  miracle."  Yea,  to  this  writer's  mind 
the  mere  matter  of  clothes-  "  seems  sufficient  to  decide  the  whole 
question."  And  this  double  settling  and  decision  of  "  the  whole 
question  "  is  reached  almost  on  the  first  page  of  his  argument. 
Mr.  Wolff,  forgetting  that  John  continued  to  baptize  after  Jesus 
had  entered  on  His  public  ministry,  limits  the  time  to  six  months, 
and  thus  makes  John  to  "  lift  dail}^  seven  hundred  and  sixtj'-eight 
thousand  pounds,  while  sunk  up  to  his  waist  in  water,  and  stag- 
gering in  the  current  of  the  Jordan."  And  jei  "John  did  no 
miracle"  !  Dr.  Dale  joins  with  his  brethren  in  pronouncing  im- 
mersion under  these  circumstances  "an  impossibilit3^ "  But  our 
author's  chief  trouble  is,  that  John  could  not  lift  so  many  people 
high  enough  for  him  alone  to  immerse  their  whole  persons  ;  while, 
as  we  all  know,  John  alone  was  commissioned  to  baptize.  The 
Baptist  theory,  he  saj^s,  "compels  us  to  add  to  the  commission 
of  John,  that  he  and  the  people  jointly  were  to  baptize ;  they 
immersing  a  part  of  their  body  by  walking  into  the  water,  and  he 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  165 

clipping  so  mucli  of  the  upper  part  of  the  body  as  the}'  ma}'  have 
left  unimmersed.  ...  I  can  only  sa}',  that,  if  John  was  com- 
manded to  immerse  the  people  in  water,  John  did  not  do  it" 
("  Johannic  Baptism,"  p.  271).  But  here  we  would  ask  if  John's 
mind  was  not  as  fertile  in  suggesting  and  inventing  expedients  as 
Dr.  Dale's.  Could  not  he  have  availed  himself  of  the  aid  of 
"ropes  and  pulle3's "  and  "clever  management"?  If  so,  we 
shall  not  yet  succumb  to  this  asserted  impossibility. 

Against  these  real  or  imaginary  difficulties  Dr.  Carson  aims 
this  single  effective  canon :  ' '  When  a  thing  is  proved  by  sufficient 
CAddence,  no  objection  from  difficulties  can  be  admitted  as  decisive, 
except  they  involve  an  impossibilit}'."  Before  this  '■'■impossi- 
bility" can  be  made  out,  our  friends  must  prove  three  things, — 
what  was  the  exact  time  of  John's  active  labors,  what  was  the 
exact  number  baptized,  and  that  John  could  have  no  assistance 
in  his  work.  And,  while  demonstrating  these  points,  they  might 
also  show  that  John  was  always  obliged  to  stand  ' '  soaking  waist- 
deep  in  the  river  ".  in  order  to  perform  his  immersions.  The  old 
frescos  generally  repi-esent  John  as  standing  on  the  bank;  while 
Jesus  stands  nude,  "  waist-deep  in  the  river."  The  administrators 
of  baptism  in  tlie  early  churches,  as  we  understand  it,  generally 
stood  outside  the  bath,  while  depressing  the  head  of  the  candidate 
slightl}'  forward,  beneath  the  water.  This  process  requires  l)ut 
little  muscular  effort,  and  not  so  much  time,  nor  so  "  much  water," 
as  our  backward  immersions.  Even  Carson  sa^-s,  "  There  is  no 
reason  to  believe  that  John  the  Baptist  usuallj'  went  into  the  water 
in  baptizing.  The  striking  difference  between  the  accounts  of 
these  two  baptisms"  (by  John  and  by  Philip)  "leads  me  to  con- 
clude that  John  chose  some  place  on  the  edge  of  the  Jordan  that 
admitted  the  immersion  of  the  person  baptized,  while  the  baptizer 
remained  on  the  margin."  Our  opinion,  however,  is,  that  John, 
as  a  general  thing,  entered  the  water  when  he  baptized  in  the 
Jordan  :  and  that,  in  the  hot  climate  of  the  Plain  of  Jericho  and 
of  the  southern  Jordan,  he  would  find  a  position  in  the  water,  and 
in  the  shade,  we  may  suppose,  of  overhanging  trees,  quite  as 
comfortable  as  one  outiide  of  the  water. ^ 

1  We  fear  that  Dr.  Dale's  novel  exegesis  of  Christ's  baptizing  in  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  fire  will  not  only  put  John  in,  but  will  drown  him  in,  water; 


166  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  great  "  multitudes  "  came  to  Jolm  to  be 
baptized  :  but  "  multitudes  "  of  them  (Luke  iii.  7)  were  Pharisees, 
Sadducees,  and  lawyers,  whom  John  upbraided  as  a  "brood  of 
vipers,"  and  whom  he  refused  to  baptize;  nay,  who  themselves 
"  rejected  the  counsel  of  God  against  themselves,  being  not  bap- 
tized of  him"  (Luke  \T.i.  30).  While,  therefore,  multitudes  came 
to  tlie  Jordan  for  baptism,  "multitudes"  also  were  sent  away. 
And  yet  John  need  not  have  sent  them  unbaptized  awaj",  since 
they  were  apparently  willing  to  submit  to  the  rite  itself ;  and  the 
baptizer,  according  to  Dale's  definition  of  hajptizo,  could  have 
"  controUingly  influenced  "  them  "  with  water  into  repentance." 

Another  question,  which,  could  it  be  decided,  would  throw  some 
light  on  this  subject,  is,  How  many  people  did  Jesus  baptize 
through  His  disciples?  Both  John  and  Jesus  were  at  one  time 
baptizing  together, — not,  we  suppose,  at  different  "springs" 
near  Salim,  as  Dale  imagines,  but  Jesus  probably  at  the  Jordan 
(so  Olshausen),  and  John  at  ^non,  "because  there  was  much 
water  there,"  and  was  hence  a  suitable  place  for  the  immersion  of 
great  numbers.  During  this  time  some  of  John's  disciples  come 
(apparently  from  a  distance)  and  teU  htm  that  Jesus  "baptizes, 
and  aU  come  to  Him"  (John  iii.  26)  ;  and  after  this  the  report 
is  spread  abroad  among  the  Pharisees,  that  "Jesus  makes  and 
baptizes  more  disciples  than  John"  (John  iv.  1).  How  long  this 
state  of  things  lasted  we  are  not  informed  ;  but  from  these  reports 
which  were  borne  to  John,  and  also  to  the  Pharisees,  it  would 
seem  that  Jesus,  through  E[is  disciples,  must  have  baptized  great 
multitudes  also.  Yet  the  largest  number  of  His  disciples  prior  to 
the  Pentecost,  that  we  ever  read  of,  were  the  one  hundred  and 

for,  according  to  Dale,  "He  shall  baptize  in  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire" 
means,  "  He  who  is  in  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire  will  baptize  hy  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  fire."  Accordingly,  the  immediately  contrasted  yet  parallel 
phrase,  "  I  baptize  in  water,"  would  naturally  mean,  "I,  being  in  water,  do 
baptize  by  water."  In  John's  assertion,  "  I  baptize  you  in  water,"  the  prep- 
osition, Dale  says,  "may  denote  only  the  position  of  the  baptizer;  in  which 
case  there  is  no  provision  left  for  putting  'you'  in  the  water"  (Johannic 
Baptism,  p.  2'72).  But  the  same  author  says,  "If  I  am  in  water,  I  am 
drowned  by  water."  Therefore  John  could  not  have  baptized  many  before 
he  himself  was  sufiocated.  It  should  be  stated,  however,  that  the  baptizer's 
position  "i)i  water"  is  taken  by  Dr.  Dale,  who  is  so  hostile  to  "figure," 
only  in  a  figurative  sense. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  167 

twenty  brethren  at  Jerusalem,  and  the  "over  five  hundred  breth- 
ren" in  GaUlee  (many  of  which  numbers,  doubtless,  were  dupli- 
cates) ;  and,  judging  from  the  occasions  and  circumstances  of 
these  gatherings,  these  numbers  evidently  constituted  a  consid- 
erable part  of  the  Saviour's  professed  disciples. 

Another  circumstance  which  tended  to  lighten  the  baptizer's 
labors  is  the  fact  that  the  multitudes  did  not  all  come  at  once ; 
but,  as  the  tense  of  the  verbs  indicates,  John  was  continuously 
baptizing  the  people :  in  other  words,  the  different  individuals  con- 
tinued coming  and  receiving  baptism ;  and,  as  they  kept  coming, 
so,  probably,  they  kept  going.  They  came  onl}'  for  baptism  ;  and 
this,  accompanied  with  confession  of  sins,  required  but  a  small 
space  of  time.  They  did  not  come  to  the  Jordan  for  a  camp- 
meeting  stay.  Probably  none  of  them  passed  a  night  there.  And 
yet  we  are  told  that  "much  water"  was  necessary  for  culinarj'^, 
ablutionary,  and  drinking  purposes,  and  for  the  use  of  camels  and 
asses,  and  that  this  was  the  reason  for  John's  choice  of  Jordan 
and  ^non.  Dr.  Dale  has  discovered  that  "  the  presence  of  water, 
actual  or  imaginary,  is  unnecessary  to  a  baptism,"  and  that  the 
Johannic  like  the  Christie  baptizo  has  ' '  no  concern  whatever  ' '  with 
the  use  of  water ;  and  perhaps  he  could  prove  that  John,  though 
"  sent  to  baptize  in  water,"  did  not  use  a  drop  of  the  Eiver  Jordan 
or  of  iEnon's  "  many  waters  "  in  his  baptism  of  the  people  "into 
repentance."  Yet  the  Scripture  records  sa}',  not  that  John  en- 
camped at  -^non,  nor  that  he  preached  in  -i3Enon,  on  account  of  its 
many  waters,  but  that  he  bapitized  at  ^non  on  account  of  its 
much  water,  and  that  the  people  came  there  for  baptism.^  The 
selection  of  place,  as  Professor  Fee  says,  "  was  made  in  reference 
to  facihties  for  baptizing,  not  the  convenience  of  cattle  and  men." 
Doubtless  immersion  could  be  performed  in  a  thousand  other 
places  ;  but,  for  the  immersion  of  multitudes,  this  place  of  many 
waters  was  the  most  suitable.     Not  the   slightest  intimation  is 

1  "It  may  be  observed,"  says  Stanley,  "that  the  only  other  extensive 
baptisms"  (than  those  of  the  Jordan)  "recorded  outside  of  Jerusalem  are 
at  Salim,  where  there  was  much  water;  and  at  Samaria,  whose  abundant 
streams  have  been  described  elsewhere."  —  See  Lieut.  Conder's  Tent-Work 
in  Palestine,  vol.  i.  p.  91,  seq. ;  also  Ingham's  Handbook  on  Baptism,  p.  419, 
seq.,  where  references  are  given  to  the  testimony  of  Robinson,  Hackett, 
Kitto,  and  others,  on  this  latter  point. 


168  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

given  of  any  other  motive  for  the  choice  of  the  place,  or  of  any 
other  use  of  the  water,  than  for  the  purpose  of  baptism.  People 
build  factories  at  Lowell  and  Lawrence  on  account  of  their  great 
water-privileges.  Perhaps  thej'  do  so  that  the  operatives  who  live 
there  ma3-  have  plenty  of  water  for  cooking  and  other  purposes ! 
It  may  be  that  some  of  the  people  came  on  camels  and  asses  ;  but 
I  doubt  whether  many  did  so.  They  did  not  come  on  long  journeys 
with  their  families  and  little  ones,  as  do  the  modern  pilgrims. 
They  did  not  come  from  so  many  and  so  far  distant  places  as  did 
the  "  gi'eat  multitudes"  that  accompanied  Jesus  (see  Matt.  iv. 
25  ;  Mark  iii.  78  ;  Luke  vi.  17,  as  compared  with  Matt.  iii.  5  ; 
Mark  i.  5),  and  who  are  commonty  supposed  to  have  followed 
Him  on  foot  (Matt.  xiv.  13  ;  Mark  vi.  33) .  And  yet  the  Scriptures 
nowhere  state  that  Jesus  resorted  to  places  of  ' '  much  water ' '  for 
the  accommodation  of  those  vast  multitudes.  Nor  have  we  but 
rarel}'  heard  it  suggested  that  an}'  women  came  to  the  Jordan  for 
John's  baptism  :  certainly  there  is  no  proof  whatever  of  theii-  com- 
ing or  presence.  August!  (in  Coleman's  "  Christian  Antiquities," 
p.  259)  says,  "John's  baptism  excluded  both  children  and  the 
female  sex."  And  Dr.  Dale  concedes  that  "there  is  no  scrip- 
tural statement  or  fact  showing  with  any  certaint}''  that  '  women ' 
were  included  in  the  ritual  baptism  of  John.  .  .  .  The  general 
featm-es  of  his  ministiy  .  .  .  point  to  the  conclusion  that  neither 
women,  nor  children,  nor  the  family,  as  such,  were  embraced  in 
the  ritual  baptism  of  John  "  ("  Christie  Baptism,"  p.  168) .  Even 
if  "camels  and  asses"  were  emploj-ed,  the}^  could  find  water 
enough  for  a  short  sta}^  in  other  places  than  Jordan  and  ^non. 
Once,  if  not  now,  as  Moses  declared,  and  as  the  manj'^  places 
whose  names  commence  with  Ain  or  En  still  witness,  Palestine, 
as  compared,  not  with  our  well- watered  New  England,  but  with 
Egypt  and  Arabia,  was  a  "land  of  brooks  of  water,  of  fountains 
and  depths  that  spring  out  of  the  valleys  and  mountains."  And 
according  to  the  testimony  of  Rev.  W.  M.  Thomson,  D.D.,  for 
twentj^-five  3'ears  a  missionarj'  in  the  East,  the  same  holds  true 
of  Palestine  to  this  day.  Speaking  of  the  country  around  the 
sources  of  the  Jordan,  he  sa^'s,  "  Certainl}^  this  is  a  good  land. 
I  have  never  seen  a  better,  and  none  where  the  fountains  and 
depths  that  spring  out  of  the  vallej's  and  hills  are  so  numerous, 
so  large,  and  so  beautiful.   .  .   .  The  number  of  these  fountains 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  169 

and  depths  is  prodigious :  .  •  .  the  whole  land  is  full  of  them." 
After  enumerating  some  of  the  principal  ones  in  the  North,  he 
says,  "And  thus  we  might  go  all  through  Palestine,  on  both 
sides  of  the  Jordan,  and  enumerate  hundreds  of  them,  — powerful 
fountains, — the  permanent  sources  of  every  river  in  the  country. 
I  have  visited  them  often,  and  always  with  admu'ation  and  aston- 
ishment. .  .  .  Many  single  villages  in  the  mountains  have  scores 
of  smaller  springs  which  run  among  the  valle3"S,  and  give  drink 
to  everj'  beast  of  the  field.  Some  even  boast  of  hundreds  of  these 
little  sources  of  fertility."  (See  "The  Land  and  the  Book,"  vol.  i. 
-pp.  405,  406.)  Lieut.  Conder,  in  his  "  Tent- Work  in  Palestine," 
makes  mention  of  ' '  twelve  considerable  streams  in  the  countr}' 
[of  Palestine],  which  contain  water  even  at  the  end  of  the  drj* 
season,  without  counting  the  Jordan."  (See  also,  in  Stanley's 
"  Sinai  and  Palestine,"  Appendix,  p.  433,  seq.,  a  notice  of  some 
sixteen  different  Hebrew  names  of  rivers,  streams,  &c.,  and  some 
twenty  for  springs,  wells,  cisterns,  &c  ;  also  Robinson's  "Bibli- 
cal Researches  in  Palestine,"  vol.  iii.  p.  644,  for  over  sixt}'  names 
of  places  beginning  with  Ain  [fountains],  which,  as  Stanley  says, 
are  the  "  briglit,  glistening,  life-gi\ing  '  eyes '  "  of  the  thirsty  East.) 
•  As  to  the  matter  of  clothes  (disrobing  and  enrobing,  &c.),  which 
troubles  all  our  Pedobaptist  friends  so  much,  I  opine  that  the 
Jews  —  who  had  to  take  so  man}'  and  so  long  festival  journeys,  and 
make  so  long  a  stay  at  those  yearly  festivals  (two  out  of  the  three 
lasting  each  a  week) ,  and  had  to  perform  so  vaany  ablutions  prior 
to  participating  in  them  —  had  learned  how  to  manage  this  clothes 
business  better  than  our  friends  would  have  us  believe.  In  fact, 
they  do  not  appear  to  have  dreaded  a  wetting  so  much  as  we  do. 
Multitudes,  for  a  time  at  least,  had  to  cross  the  Jordan,  manj-  of 
them  doubtless  on  foot,  before  the}*  could  be  baptized  b}'  John  in 
Bethany.  What  they  did  with  their  wet  clothing  on  these  occa- 
sions I  do  not  certainly  know ;  but  they  probably  managed  this 
matter  without  any  exceeding  difficulty.  It  would  not  be  surpris- 
ing if  persons  subjected  to  the  intense  heat  of  the  Jordan-Ghor, 
near  the  Dead  Sea,  retained,  in  many  instances,  the  wet  clothing 
(slight,  of  course,  in  amount)  upon  their  persons,  "  and  often,"  as 
Dr.  J.  P^'e  Smith  suggests,  "  with  great  comfort  and  pleasure." 
Ingham  adduces  the  fact,  recorded  by  Mr.  Buckingham,  "  that, 
when  travelling  in  the  East,  he  frequently  plunged  overhead  in  his 


170  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

clothes,  and  found  himself  greatly  refreshed  by  it,  although  he  suf- 
fered his  clothes  even  to  drj'  upon  him."  Maundrell  saj^s  that  the 
Jordan's  inner  banli:  "is  so  beset  with  bushes  and  trees,  such  as 
tamarisks,  willows,  oleanders,  &c.,  that  you  can  see  no  water  till 
you  have  made  your  way  through  them."  Perhaps  this  dense  copse, 
this  "  wild  thicket,"  this  "mazy  jungle,"  of  which  we  read,  af- 
forded them  sujQicient  shelter,  if  they  could  get  no  better,  for  all 
the  disrobing  and  dressing  which  they  needed.  If  any  one,  how- 
ever, thinks  this  clothes  difficulty  renders  their  immersion  an  im- 
possibility^ its  demonstration  should  at  once  be  made  known.  Of 
one  thing  we  are  pretty  sure, — that  this  difficulty  has  not,  since  the 
Saviour's  time,  hindered  millions  of  pilgrims  of  every  age  and  sex, 
and  from  every  land,  from  visiting  the  Jordan,  and  baptizing  them- 
selves beneath  its  waves. 

Dean  Stanley  (in  his  "  Sinai  and  Palestine,  p.  308)  gives  a  de- 
scription of  "  the  biathing  of  the  pilgrims  in  the  Jordan  "  (on  Mon- 
day of  passion-week  at  the  Greek  Easter) ,  which  he  regards  as 
"  presenting  the  nearest  likeness  that  can  now  be  seen,  in  the  same 
general  scenery,  to  the  multitudinous  baptisms  of  John"  in  that 
river  "where,"  as  he  says,  "began  that  sacred  rite  which  has 
since  spread  throughout  the  world,  through  the  vast  baptisteries 
of  the  Southern  and  Oriental  churches,  gradually  dwindling  to 
the  little  fonts"  (not  founts  now,  but  basins  rather)  "of  the 
North  and  West,  the  plunges  beneath  the  water  diminishing  to 
the  few  drops  which  b}'  a  wise  ( ?)  exercise  of  Christian  freedom 
are  now  in  most  churches  the  sole  representative  of  the  full  stream 
of  the   descending   river"    (p.    307).^      Perhaps,    however,    our 

1  We  may  here  remark,  that  even  Alf ord,  who  finds  in  the  baptism  of 
proselytes  a  pattern  for  John's  baptism,  assents,  consequently,  to  this  bap- 
tism as  being  immersion.  On  Matt.  iii.  6  he  comments  thus:  "When  men 
were  admitted  as  proselytes,  three  rites  were  performed,  —  circumcision,  bap- 
tism, and  oblation ;  when  women,  two,  —  baptism  and  oblation.  The  bap- 
tism was  administered  in  the  day-time,  by  immersion  of  the  whole  person; 
and,  while  standing  in  the  water,  the  proselyte  was  instructed  in  certain  por- 
tions of  the  law.  ...  It  is  most  probable  that  John's  baptism  in  outward  form 
resembled  that  of  proselytes."  It  is  extremely  doubtful,  however,  whether 
proselyte  baptism  (which  was  an  invention  of  men;  which  was  never  ad- 
ministered to  Jews,  and  only  to  Gentile  proselytes  and  tlieir  children  when 
first  admitted  to  the  Jewish  Commonwealth ;  and  whicli,  like  tlie  ablution  of 
the  Essenes,  noticed  in  Josephus'  Wars,  2 :  8,  7,  was  ordinarily  self-perf ormed) 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  171 

readers  would  be  as  well  pleased  with  a  description  of  this  pUgiim 
bathing  by  our  own  countrjTnan,  Lieut.  William  F.  Lynch,  who 

was  in  vogue  so  early  as  the  Saviour's  time.-  (See  article  on  Jewish  Pros- 
elyte Baptism,  by  Professor  C.  H.  Toy,  D.D.,  in  Baptist  Quarterly  for  1872, 
p.  301  seq.)  Dr.  Wall,  indeed,  finds  a  pre-Christian  proselyte  baptism,  and 
in  it  a  model  for  Joliannic  and  Christian  baptism,  both  as  to  mode  and 
subjects.  Bengel  deems  this  early  baptism  to  be  initiatory,  and  not  self- 
performed,  though  simply  accessory,  and  not  essentially  necessary.  Matthias 
regards  this  early  jDroselyte  baptism  as  an  initiatory  ablution  or  lustration, 
yet  having  no  very  special  solemnity  or  force  until  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  and  the  abolishment  of  sacrifices.  Schneckenburger,  in  opposi- 
tion to  Bengel,  finds  no  proper  proselyte  baptism  until  the  end  of  the  third 
century,  and  maintains,  in  unison  with  the  testimony  of  Maimonides  of  the 
twelfth  century,  that  even  then  it  was  ordinarily  self-performed;  yet  he 
supposes  that  the  pre-Christian  proselytes,  in  connection  with  their  circum- 
cision and  offering,  may  have  performed  vipon  themselves  some  one  of  the 
customary  Levitical  self-ablutions  of  that  time.  Dr.  Lightfoot,  who  holds 
to  the  pre-Christian  origin  of  proselyte  baptism,  yet  declares  himself  thus 
plainly  as  to  the  mode:  "As  soon  as  the  proselyte  grows  whole  of  the 
wound  of  circumcision  they  bring  him  to  baptism ;  and,  being  placed  in  the 
water,  they  again  instruct  him,"  &c. :  whereupon  "  he  plungeth  himself,  and 
comes  up;  and,  behold,  he  is  an  Israelite  in  all  things.  The  women  place 
a  woman  in  the  waters  up  to  the  neck ;  and  two  disciples  of  the  wise  men, 
standing  without,  instruct  her  about  some  lighter  precepts  of  the  law,  and 
some  weightier :  while  she  in  the  mean  time  stands  in  the  waters,  and  then 
she  plungeth  herself;  and  they,  turning  away  their  faces,  go  out  while 
she  comes  up  out  of  the  water."  "Now,  what  that  plunging  was,  you 
may  know  from  those  things  which  Maimonides  speaks  of  in  Mikvoth: 
'  Every  person  baptized  must  dip  his  whole  body,  now  stripped  and  made 
naked,  at  one  dipping.  And,  wheresoever  in  the  law  washing  of  the  gar- 
ments or  body  is  mentioned,  it  means  nothing  else  than  the  washing  of  the 
whole  body ;  for  if  any  wash  himself  all  over,  except  the  very  tip  of  his 
little  finger,  he  is  still  in  his  uncleanness.'  "  "  According  to  the  rabbis," 
says  De  Wette,  "  circumcision,  an  offering,  and  baptism  were  necessary  to  the 
reception  of  proselytes.  Baptism,  however,  is  probably  a  later  institute;  for 
it  is  not  mentioned  in  the  older  writings  "  (referring  here  to  the  Apocrypha, 
Josephus,  Philo,  the  Targums,  and  Mishna),  "but  only  in  the  Gemara, 
whose  testimony  speaks  merely  for  the  time  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem, and  in  other  later  writings.  Yet,  connected  with  proselyte  consecration, 
there  may  have  been  in  ancient  times  a  kind  of  lustration  from  which 
proselyte  baptism  (perhaps  not  without  an  imitation  of  the  Christian)  has 
arisen."  (See  Design  of  Baptism,  by  Prof.  Irah  Chase,  D.D.,  p.  38.) 
Winer  is  of  the  opinion  that  proselyte  baptism  as  an  independent,  initiatory 
rite,  in  inseparable  connection  with  circumcision,  and  regarded  as  of  equal 
value,  did  not  exist  until  after  the  destruction  of  the  second  temple.    Dr. 


172  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

was  the  first  really  to  explore  the  Jordan  from  the  Lake  of  Tiberias 
to  the  Dead  Sea :  — 

"  At  three  a.m.  we  were  aroused  b}^  the  intelligence  that  the  pil- 
grims were  coming.  Rising  in  haste,  we  beheld  thousands  of 
torchlights,  with  a  dark  mass  beneath,  mo^dng  rapidl}^  over  the 
hills.  Striking  our  tents  with  precipitation,  we  hu^rriedlj''  removed 
them  and  all  our  effects  a  short  distance  to  the  left.  We  had 
scarce  finished  when  thej^  were  upon  us  :  men,  women,  and  chil- 
di'en,  mounted  on  camels,  horses,  mules,  and  donke3''s,  rushed 
impetuously  by  toward  the  bank.  They  presented  the  appearance 
of  fugitives  from  a  routed  armj'.  .  .  .  The  party  which  had 
disturbed  us  was  the  advanced  guard  of  the  great  bod}^  of  the 
pilgrims.  At  five,  just  at  the  dawn  of  day,  the  last  made  its  ap- 
pearance, coming  over  the  crest  of  a  high  ridge  in  one  tumultuous 
and  eager  throng. 

"  In  all  the  wild  haste  of  a  disorderly  rout,  —  Copts  and  Russians, 
Poles,  Ai-menians,  Greeks  and  Spians,  from  all  parts  of  Asia, 
from  Europe,  from  Africa,  and  from  far-distant  America,  — on  they 
came ;  men,  women,  and  children  of  every  age  and  hue,  and  in 
every  variet}'  of  costume,  talking,  screaming,  shouting,  in  almost 
every  known  language  under  the  sun.  Mounted  as  variousl}'  as 
those  who  had  preceded  them,  many  of  the  women  and  children 
were  suspended  in  baskets,  or  confined  in  cages  ;  and  with  their 
eyes  strained  toward  the  river,  heedless  of  all  intervening  ob- 
stacles, they  hurried  eagerl}^  forward,  and  dismounting  in  haste, 


Dollinger  uses  the  following  language:  "St.  John  had  just  introduced  the 
rite  of  immersion  in  the  Jordan  as  a  symbol  of  the  repentance  and  renova- 
tion whereby  the  whole  man  must  be  purified.  This  was  not  borrowed  from 
the  Jewish  custom  of  baptizing  proselytes,  which  only  came  in  after  the  fall 
of  Jerusalem.  St.  John  was  sent  to  baptize  for  repentance :  Christ  adopt- 
ed the  rite.  .  .  .  Like  that  of  St.  John,  it  was  by  immersion  of  the  whole 
person;  which  is  the  only  meaning  of  the  New-Testament  word."  The  bap- 
tism of  John — was  it  from  heaven,  or  of  men  ?  Doubtless  from  heaven; 
and  being  peculiarly  a  baptism  of  repentance,  and  of  faith  in  the  coming 
Messiah,  it  necessarily  excluded  unconscious  infants.  Such  was  the  only 
initiatory  baptism  with  which  the  apostles  and  immediate  disciples  of 
Christ  are  knovjn  to  have  been  acquainted.  And  here  we  might  ask 
whether  their  knowledge  of  the  peculiar  characteristics  of  this  baptism 
might  not  aid  them,  if  aid  were  needed,  in  interpreting  the  law  of  the 
"great  commission." 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  173 

and  disrobing  with  precipitation,  rushed  down  the  bank,  and  threw 
themselves  into  the  stream. 

"  The}'-  seemed  to  be  absorbed  by  one  impulsive  feeling,  and 
perfectly  regardless  of  the  obsei-vations  of  others.  Each  one 
plunged  himself,  or  was  dipped  hy  another,  three  times  below  the 
surface  in  honor  of  the  Trinity,  and  then  filled  a  bottle  or  some 
other  utensil  from  the  river.  The  bathing-dress  of  many  of  the 
pilgrims  was  a  white  gown  with  a  black  cross  upon  it.  Most  of 
them,  as  soon  as  they  dressed,  cut  branches  either  of  the  Agnus 
cast  us,  or  willow,  and,  dipping  them  in  the  consecrated  stream,  bore 
them  away  as  memorials  of  their  visit."  [We  here  quote  a  para- 
graph from  Stanley,  p.  310  :  "  They  dismount,  and  set  to  work  to 
perform  their  bath,  —  most  in  the  open  space;  some  farther  up 
amongst  the  thickets  ;  some  plunging  in  naked  ;  most,  however, 
with  white  dresses  which  they  bring  with  them,  and  which,  ha\ing 
been  so  used,  are  kept  for  their  winding-sheets.  .  .  .  The  families 
which  have  come  on  their  single  mule  now  bathe  together  with 
the  utmost  gravit}'' ;  the  father  recei\'ing  from  the  mother  the  infant, 
which  has  been  brought  to  receive  the  one  immersion  which  will 
suffice  for  the  rest  of  its  hfe."] 

"  In  an  hour  they  began  to  disappear,  and  in  less  than  three 
hours  the  trodden  surface  of  the  latelj^  crowded  bank  reflected  no 
human  shadow.  The  pageant  disappeared  as  rapidl}^  as  it  had  ap- 
proached, and  left  us  once  more  the  silence  and  the  solitude  of  the 
wilderness.  It  was  like  a  dream.  An  immense  crowd  of  human 
beings  —  said  to  be  eight  thousand,  but  I  thought  not  so  many  — 
had  passed  and  repassed  before  our  tents,  and  left  not  a  vestige 
behind  them."  — Lynch's  Narrative,  p.  260,  seq. 


174  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

BAPTISM  OF  COUCHES. — MARK  VH.  4. 

IN  Carson's  polemical  enginery  we  find  this  canon:  "When  a 
thing  is  proved  by  sufficient  evidence,  no  objection  from  diffi- 
culties can  be  admitted  as  decisive,  except  they  involve  an  impos- 
sibility." And  he  brings  this  canon  to  bear  against  the  idea  of  a 
supposed  peculiar  difficulty  in  the  immersing  of  couches  (rendered 
in  our  version  "  washing  of  tables,"  or  "  beds,"  as  in  the  mar- 
gin) .  Some  have  gone  so  far  as  to  speak  of  the  ' '  impossibility ' ' 
of  the  thing ;  but  this  has  never  been  and  never  can  be  proved. 
Professor  Shedd  (quoting  in  Lange's  "  Commentary,"  from  Profess- 
or J.  A.  Alexander)  ventures  only  to  say  that  this  passage  affords, 
"if  not  conclusive  evidence,  at  least  a  strong  presumption,  that 
beds  (to  say  no  more)  might  be  baptized  without  immersion."  So, 
under  the  shelter  of  Carson's  canon,  we  need  not,  as  jet,  feel  greatly 
disturbed. 

The  word  here  used  for  couches  sometimes  refers  to  beds  for 
sleeping,  &c.,  which  —  often  being  but  mats,  quilts,  or  very  hght 
mattresses  —  could  be  easily  carried  about  in  one's  arms  for  quite 
a  distance  (Matt.  ix.  2-6;  also  Luke  v.  18;  Acts  v.  15).  De 
Wette,  in  the  passage  before  us,  regards  these  Mined  as  being 
beds  in  general.  In  the  latest  edition  of  Tischendorf  the  word  is 
omitted  altogether,  and  it  will  probably  be  omitted  in  our  forthcom- 
ing revised  version.^    "We  shall  here,  however,  treat  it  as  genuine  ; 

1  "It  is  omitted,"  says  Professor  Abbot,  "by  Tischendorf  in  his  last 
critical  edition,  and  by  Westcott  and  Hort ;  retained  by  Lachmann,  Tregelles, 
Alford,  Weiss,  and  the  commentators  generally.  They  suppose  it  to  have 
been  omitted  by  accident.  On  the  other  side,  it  is  to  be  said  that  the  au- 
thorities which  omit  it — B.  L.,  the  Codex  Sinai ticus,  and  the  Codex  San 
Gallensis  —  are  just  those  which  generally  preserve  the  true  reading  in  this 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  175 

and,  since  the  other  vessels  mentioned  in  the  verse  refer  to  eating 
utensils,  we  shall  regard  these  klinai  as  referring  to  the  couches  on 
which  people  reclined  for  eating.  There  were  generally  three  of 
them  around  a  table  (hence  called  triclinia)  ;  and  each  of  them 
commonly  was  large  enough  for  the  occupancy  of  two,  three,  or 
more  persons.  These  couches,  according  to  Dr.  John  Lightfoot, 
the  great  rabbinical  scholar,  were,  rendered  unclean  by  persons 
affected  with  leprosy,  blood}'  issue,  &c.  The  records  do  not  state 
how  often  these  were  baptized  ;  but  it  would  seem  that  the  occasions 
for  this  thorough  cleansing  were  quite  unfrequent.  Heaton  says, 
"It  is  incredible  that  the  Jews  should  immerse  their  couches  be- 
fore each  meal ;  "  and  we  agree  with  him.  Nor  is  any  intimation 
of  such  frequency  given  in  the  gospel  narrative.  Still  the  scru- 
pulosity of  excessive  Pharisaism  would  doubtless  lead  them  to 
perform  "incredibilities  "  and  seeming  impossibilities.  In  our  ig- 
norance of  the  construction  of  these  couches  we  may  suppose  that 
they  consisted  of  a  frame-work,  with  its  different  coverings.  Per- 
haps the  Mine  proper  —  consisting  of  a  light  and  easily  portable 
mat  or  coverlet,  on  which,  with  the  aid  of  pillows,  men  were  accus- 
tomed to  recline  for  eating  —  itself  constituted  the  principal  cover- 
ing, and  this  alone  may  have  been  baptized.  Dr.  Kitto  goes  so  far 
as  "  to  suggest  that  not  the  bed  itself,  but  its  covering,  was  washed." 
This,  we  thinlv,  would  be  hardly  enough  to  satisfy  Pharisaic  scru- 
pulosity. According  to  the  custom  of  the  later  Jews,  even  the 
whole  frame-work  had  to  be  taken  in  pieces  and  dipped.  Mark 
has  not  told  us  how  these  superstitious  Pharisees  accomplished 
their  couch-dipping ;  he  simply  states  that  they  baptized  their 
couches,  —  i.e.,  immersed  them  in  water  :  and  no  fancied  difficulty 
connected  with  the  operation  should  allow  us  to  depart  from  the 
usual  and  established  import  of  that  word.  Certainl}^  these 
couches  might  have  been  so  constructed,  that,  if  they  could  not  be 
baptized  whole,  they  might  yet  be  taken  to  pieces,  and  so  baptized. 
The  Rabbi  Maimonides   saj^s  that  "every  vessel  of  wood  which 

Gospel.  Volkmar  adopts  Hitzig's  conjecture  of  klibanon,  'earthen  pans'  or 
*  pots,'  for  klinon.^'  Professor  George  R.  Noyes,  who  in  his  translation  fol- 
lows the  Greek  text  of  Tischendorf,  renders  the  baptizo  of  Mark  vii.  4,  "  un- 
less they  bathe;"  and  the  bcqMsmoufi,  &c.,  of  the  same  verse,  "the  dipping 
of  cups  and  pitchers,  and  brazen  vessels."  Professor  Eiddle,  in  SchaflTs 
Popular  Commentary,  likewise  omits  "couches"  from  his  version. 


176  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

is  made  for  the  use  of  man,  as  a  talDle  or  bed,  receives  defile- 
ment. .  .  .  And  these  were  waslied  by  covering  them  in  water." 
He  farther  says,  "Abed  that  is  wholl}^  defiled,  if  a  man  dip  it 
part  b}'  part,  it  is  pm-e.  If  he  dips  the  bed  in  the  pool,  although 
the  feet  are  plunged  in  the  thick  claj-  at  the  bottom  of  the  pool,  it 
is  clean."  Dr.  Dale  "  dechnes  the  offered  intervention  of  a  bed- 
screw  to  get  them  "  (these  couches)  "  to  the  dipping."  Perhaps, 
however,  this  instrument  was  not  needed ;  but,  if  it  were,  exces- 
sive Pharisaism,  so  sternly  rebuked  hy  the  Savioui*,  might  gladly 
make  use  of  it. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  in  his  "  Stromata,"  or  Miscellanies 
(bk.  iv.  chap.  22) ,  has,  by  Dr.  Dale  and  some  others,  been  sup- 
posed to  refer  to  these  couch-baptizings  when  he  says,  "  This  is  a 
custom  of  the  Jews  that  the}'  should  be  often  baptized  {epi  koite) 
upon  bed,"  —  an  example,  we  believe,  which  is  not  noticed  in 
Conant's  "  Baptizein."  President  Beecher  renders  this  latter 
phrase,  "baptized  often  upon  their  couches  "  !  This,  I  doubt  not, 
would  be  going  far  beyond  any  tradition  ever  received  from  the 
elders.  Knowing  that  water-baptism,  to  the  mind  of  Clement,  as 
of  the  church  fathers  in  general,  involved  an  "  intusposition  "  in 
water,  we  cannot  believe  that  the  Jews  were  oft^n  baptized  "  on 
their  couches,"  or  that  Clement  intended  to  convej'  any  such  idea. 
They  might  thus  be  baptized  upon  "  bed,"  if  bed  be  regarded  as 
used  euphemisticall}'  for  sexual  commerce  (as  in  Rom.  ix.  10),  or 
for  "  chambering,"  or  lewdness  (as  in  Rom.  xiii.  13).  For  such 
cases  the  Levitical  rites  provided  ablutions,  and  it  is  to  these  that 
Clement  evidently  refers  (see  Lev.  xv.).  Indeed,  Clement  inter- 
prets himself  in  another  passage,  where  he  exphcitly  affirms  that 
"  divine  providence,  through  the  Lord,  does  not  now,  as  former^, 
command  to  be  baptized  from  the  conjugal  bed."  The  phrase 
"  upon  bed"  would  then  mean  either  on  account  of  or  after  bed 
{post  concubitum) ,  as  it  is  rendered  in  the  Latin  version  of  Clement's 
works  b}"  Archbishop  Potter  of  England,  author  of  the  once  well- 
known  "  Antiquities  of  Greece."  "With  tliis  accords  the  rendering 
which  is  given  to  this  passage  (by  Rev.  William  Wilson  of  Mussel- 
burgh) in  Clark's  "  Ante-Nicene  Christian  Library' ;  "  to  wit,  "  It 
was  a  custom  of  the  Jews  to  wash  frequently  after  being  in  bed." 
We  do  not  read  of  any  customary  baptizing  or  gwasi-baptizing  of 
persons  on  beds  or  couches,  literally  speaking,  till  we  reach  that 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  177 

period  in  early  Christian  history  when  baptism  came  to  be  regarded 
as  indispensable  to  salvation  ("Nemo  adscendit  in  regnum  coslo- 
rum  nisi  per  sacramentum  baptismatis,"  Ambrose),  and  "clinic 
baptisms,"  so  called,  came  into  vogue.  Then  the  sick  and  dying, 
if  unbaptized,  were  frequentl}^  affused  on  their  beds :  and  this 
"  divine  compend  "  or  abridgment  of  baptism  would  in  such  a  case, 
of  necessity',  and  through  special  divine  "indulgence,"  answer 
for  baptism,  and  insure  their  eternal  salvation  ;  though,  in  case  of 
recovery,  they  were  precluded  from  the  office  of  the  ministry.^ 

It  would  seem,  however,  that  Athanasius,  "  the  father  of  ortho- 
doxy," did  not  tMnk  much  of  these  "  clinic  baptisms  ;  "  for,  when 
asked  his  opinion  on  the  common  practice  of  death-bed  baptisms, 
he  replied,  "  An  angel  once  said  to  my  great  predecessor,  '  Peter ' 
(a  former  bishop  of  Alexandria) ,  '  wh}'  do  3'ou  send  me  those 
sacks  (wind-bags)  carefully  sealed  up,  loith  nothing  luhatever  in- 
side? '  "  Yet  not  all  the  clinic  or  bed  baptisms  were  by  pouring  ; 
for  where  immersion  was  possible,  as  Dr.  Brenner  saj's  (p.  15), 
"even  clinics  were  immersed."  "  For  thirteen  hundred  years," 
ssLjs  this  Roman-Catholic  writer  (p.  306),  "  was  baptism  generally 
and  regularl}^  an  immersion  of  the  person  under  water,  and  only 
in  extraordinary  cases  a  sprinkling  or  pouring  with  water :  the  • 
latter  was,  moreover,  disputed  as  a  mode  of  baptism,  na}',  even: 
forbidden."  (See  the  German  original  in  Conant's  "  Baptizein,"' 
p.  141.)  Similar  also  is  the  testimony  of  Dean  Stanley  in  his 
"History  of  the  Eastern  Church"  (p.  117)  :  "  There  can  be  no 
question  that  the  original  form  of  baptism  —  the  very  meaning  of 
the  word  —  was  complete  immersion  in  the  deep  baptismal  waters,. 
and  that,  for  at  least  four  centuries,  an}"  other  form  was  either  un- 
known, or  regarded,  unless  in  the  case  of  dangerous  illness,  as  an. 
exceptional,  almost  a  monstrous  case.  To  this  form  the  Eastern 
Church  still  rigidly  adheres  ;  and  the  most  illustrious  and  venerable 
portion  of  it,  that  of  the  Byzantine  Empire,  absolutel}"  repudiates 

^  We  may  well  feel  a  little  hurt  that  Dr.  Dale  should  speak  of  our  "  impov- 
erished condition  as  without  any  baptism,"  when  we,  just  to  save  ourselves 
from  drowning,  adopt  the  "  compend^'  dipping  for  baptism.  To  some  one 
who  said  in  Dr.  Johnson's  hearing  that  he  must  live,  the  doctor  replied 
that  he  saw  no  necessity  for  it.  And  perhaps  Dr.  Dale  does  not  deem  the 
preservation  of  our  lives  a  thing  of  necessity!  But  will  Presbyterians  here- 
after admit  us,  though  unbaptized,  to  church-fellowship  and  communion  ? 


178  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

and  ignores  any  other  mode  of  administration  as  essentially  in- 
valid." "We  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  customary  baptizing  of 
the  Jews  "  upon  bed,"  spoken  of  by  Clement,  has  no  reference  to 
any  thing  like  these  necessitous  extraordinary  Christian  "  clinic 
baptisms,"  nor  to  the  baptism  of  couches  spoken  of  by  Mark,  but 
to  something  of  an  entirely  different  nature  from  either.  Yet  let 
us  listen  to  President  Beecher:  ''Our  credulitj^  has  been  sorely 
taxed  by  the  demand  to  believe  that  couches  were  habitually  ( ?) 
immersed  b}'  the  Jews  ;  yes,  by  all  the  Jews.  Shall  we  go  one  step 
farther,  and  affirm  that  it  was  their  custom  frequently  to  be  immersed 
upon  their  couches?  Shall  we  believe  that  they  had  baptisteries 
below  their  couches,  and  an  apparatus  of  ropes  and  pulleys  for 
elevating  and  depressing  men,  couches  and  all?  and  that  they  were 
in  the  habit  of  doing  this  frequently  in  the  course  of  one  meal  ? ' ' 
What  a  piling-up  of  difficulties  is  here !  —  enough,  surely,  to  tax 
anybody's  creduHty ;  and  yet  Beecher's  interpretation  of  Clem- 
ent is  followed  by  Dale  and  Stearns,  even  as  they  followed  his 
more  wonderful  interpretation  of  Cyril,  "  baptized  by  the  ashes  of 
a  heifer  "  !  . 

Another  false  representation  of  Carson  by  Hutchings  may  here 
be  noticed.  Carson  remarks  on  Mark  vii.  4,  "  Though  it  were 
proved  that  the  couches  could  not  be  immersed  "  (so  capitalized 
by  Hutchings  and  Stearns),  "  I  would  not  3'ield  an  inch  of  the 
ground  I  have  occupied."  But  he  goes  on  to  sa}^,  "There  is  no 
absolute  necessity  to  suppose  that  the  Tclinai  were  the  couches  at 
table."  He  says  they  might  have  been  beds  such  as"  one  could 
take  up  from  the  street,  and  carry  to  his  house  (Matt.  ix.  6) .  And, 
on  the  fourth  page  preceding  this  quotation,  he  lays  down  the 
canon  which  heads  this  chapter:  "No  objection  from  difficulties 
can  be  admitted  as  decisive,  except  they  involve  an  impossibility." 
Carson  was  nobody's  fool ;  and  yet  Hutchings  would  make  him 
say,  "  Such  is  the  meaning  of  the  word,  even  if  it  be  impossible  "  ! 
(See  "Mode  of  Baptism,"  p.  204.)  Should  such  aspersion  as 
this  be  cast  upon  the  dead?  and  is  this  ad  captandum  style  of 
argument  natm-ally  promotive  of  that  "  Christian  union  "  for  which 
:this  author  so  tenderly  pleads  ? 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  179 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

BAPTISM   OF   THE    "THREE   THOUSAND." 

"They,  therefore,  having  received  his  word,  were  baptized;  and  on  that 
day  were  added  about  three  thousand  souls."  — Acts  ii.  41. 

IN  the  River  Jordan  and  in  the  many  waters  of  ^non,  the  bap- 
tisteries which  John  emploj'ed,  there  was,  confessedl}',  no 
scarcit}^  of  water ;  though  the  time  has  been,  when  not  only  were 
JEnon's  many  waters  regarded  as  small  springs,  but  even  the 
Jordan  itself  was  deemed  an  insignificant  streamlet,  not  deep 
enough  for  human  immersion.  Nor  do  our  friends  find  any  alarm- 
ing scarcity  till  the  attempt  is  made  to  immerse  in  Jerusalem  the 
large  numbers  converted  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  To  be  sure, 
there  were  almost  numberless  reservoirs,  cisterns,  pools,  and  foun- 
tains in  and  around  the  city  ;  so  that,  as  Robinson  sa^^s,  "in  the 
numerous  sieges  to  which  in  all  ages  it  has  been  exposed,  we 
nowhere. read  of  an}-  want  of  water  within  the  city"  ("Bib.  Re- 
searches," vol.  i.  p.  323).  "  Every  one,"  saj's  Professor  Stuart, 
"  acquainted  with  Jewish  rites,  must  know  that  the}'  "  (the  Jews) 
"  made  much  use  of  ablutions,  and  therefore  would  pro%-ide  many 
conveniences  for  them."  "Considering,"  says  Dr.  Halley,  "the 
multitudes  in  Jerusalem  at  the  feasts,  there  must  have  been  means 
of  preserving  vast  quantities  of  water."  "There  was,  it  must 
be  acknowledged,  a  great  deal  of  water  used  in  the  temple  ser- 
vice." "  I  must  candidly,  as  I  do  cheerfully,  acknowledge,  that 
there  must  have  been  abundance  of  water  in  the  citj'  to  have 
washed  awaj'  the  blood  of  two  hundred  and  fift}'  thousand  lambs 
slain  at  one  passover."  Still  Professor  Robinson  has  some  doubts 
about  the  sufficiencj^  of  water  in  that  "well-watered"  cit}-,  as 
Strabo  terms  it,  for  the  immersion  of  so  many  at  one  time.     (See 


180  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

Note  III.,  end  of  the  volume.)  "  Against  the  idea  of  then-  immer- 
sion there  are,"  says  Plutchings,  "three  insuperable  objections: 
there  was  no  place  to  do  it  in,  no  provision  of  baptismal  gar- 
ments, and  no  sufficient  time."  Dr.  Dale  finds  "difficulties  as 
mountains  upon  mountains  piled"  against  the  idea  of  "dipping 
these  three  thousand  into  water  within  that  day."  He  alleges  in 
the  Jirst  place,  that  nothing  is  said  about  water, ^  and  hence  he 
infers  a  spiritual  baptism,  — a  baptism  "  by,"  or  "of,"  or  even 
"  with,"  but  not  in,  the  Holy  Spirit  (which  last  preposition  is  alone 
emploj-ed  by  inspiration),  although  Peter  expressl}'  distinguishes 
this  baptizing  from  the  recei^'ing  of  the  gift  of  the  Spmt ;  secondly, 
that  there  is  no  intimation  of  the  presence  of  water  in  or  around 
the  place  where  the}'  were ;  thirdlp,  that  the  resen^oii's  of  water 
gathered  for  citj'  purposes  would  not  be  available  or  suitable  for 
the  clipping  of  the  three  thousand,  even  if,  fourthly,  the  enemies 
of  Christ,  who  slew  Him  as  it  were  but  yesterday,  and  to-morrow 
will  persecute  His  disciples  unto  death,  could  be  so  extraordinaril}' 
courteous  as  to  throw  open  those  reservoirs  for  the  free  use  of  the 
followers  of  the  hated  Nazarene  ;  and,  fifthly,  "  what  is  to  be  done 
in  the  matter  of  dress  ?  "  Here,  at  the  re-occurrence  of  this  clothes 
difficult}',  we  may  well  stop,  although  our  author  goes  on  with  still 
other  difficulties  and  ol^jections.  Dr.  Johnson  said  "there  were 
objections  against  a  plenum,  and  objections  against  a  vacuiun  ;  but 
one  or  the  other  must  be  true. ' '  "While  considering  these  objections 
and  difficulties  urged  by  our  friends  to  prove  an  "impossibility," 
we  have  wondered  why  they  have  not  written  more  largely  on  the 
seemingly  ' '  insuperable  duUculties ' '  attendant  on  the  alleged 
keeping  of  so  many  national  festivals  at  Jerusalem.  It  would  be 
a  fruitful  theme,  and  they  could  make  out-  quite  a  stoiy.  "  TJiree 
times  a  year"  —  at  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  lasting  seven  days  ; 
of  the  Pentecost,  lasting  one  or  two  days  ;  and  of  the  Tabernacles, 

1  "Among  the  difficulties  of  the  case  is  the  fact  that  water  is  neither 
mentioned  in  the  ijassage  nor  in  the  context."  Neither  is  it  mentioned  in 
sice  out  of  the  eight  water-rite  examples  which  he  finds  in  apostolic  history. 
And  elsewhere  he  cites  the  following,  which  we  may  regard  as  a  valid  rea- 
son for  this  "  ellipsis  of  water: "  "  The  doctrine  of  ellipsis  is,  that  that  which 
is  the  most  essential  requisite  in  any  transaction  may  be  omitted,  on  the 
ground  that  it  cannot  but  be  missed,  and  therefore  will  not  fail  to  be 
supplied." 


STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM.  181 

continuing  eight  da3^s  —  all  the  male  Israelites  had  to  appear  before 
the  Lord  at  Jerusalem,  —  a  place  estimated  to  have  been,  in  our 
Saviour's  time,  onl}'  about  a  square  mile  in  extent.  At  these 
feasts,  and  especially,  perhaps,  at  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  most, 
if  not  all,  the  members  of  the  Jewish  famihes  were  generally 
present.  Jesus'  parents  went  up  to  Jerusalem  every  year  at  the 
feast  of  the  Passover  ;  and  He,  when  "  twelve  years  old,"  went  up 
with  them  (Luke  ii.  41).  Josephus  (an  author  inclined,  indeed, 
to  exaggeration)  tells  us,  that  at  one  passover  there  were  three 
million  Jews  present  at  Jerusalem,  At  another  passover  there 
were  slain,  by  actual  count,  two  hundred  and  fifty-six  thousand 
five  hundred  lambs  ;  and  he  saj^s,  not  extravagantl}',  that  not  less 
than  ten  persons  usuall}'  partook  of  each  lamb.  At  our  Lord's 
last  passover,  twelve  besides  Himself  partook  of  the  Paschal  lamb  ; 
and,  at  this  average,  there  would  be  over  three  million  persons  at 
the  passover.  Where  could  thej  get  so  many  male  lambs  every 
3^ear  ?  But  again :  it  is  well  known  that  Titus'  siege  of  Jerusa- 
lem began  at  the  time  of  the  passover,  in  April,  and  lasted  nearly 
five  months.  At  that  passover,  as  Josephus  states,  innumerable 
multitudes  flocked  thither  out  of  "the  whole  country,  and  from 
beyond  its  limits,  even  from  the  ends  of  the  earth,  in  order  to 
worship  God  and  offer  sacrifices  at  this  celebrated  place."  "  This 
vast  multitude,  collected  out  of  remote  places,  even  the  entire 
nation,  was  now  shut  up  by  fate  as  in  a  prison,  and  the  Roman 
arm^^  encompassed  the  city  when  it  was  crowded  with  inhabitants. 
Accordingly,  the  multitude  of  those  that  therein  perished  exceeded 
all  the  destructions  that  either  men  or  God  ever  brought  upon  the 
world."  (See  Matt.  xxiv.  21.)  He  further  states  that  the  num- 
ber of  those  that  were  taken  captive  in  Jerusalem  was  ninety- 
seven  thousand ;  that  the  number  of  the  poor  who  were  buried  at 
public  charges  was  six  hundred  thousand ;  and  that  the  whole 
number  of  the  slain  during  this  five-months'  siege  was  one  miUion 
one  hundred  thousand,  '"the  greater  part  of  whom  belonged  to 
the  same  nation,  but  not  belonging  to  the  cit}-  itself;  for  the}' 
were  come  up  from  all  the  country  to  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread  "  ("  Wars  "  2  :  14,  3  ;  6  :  9,  3,  4,  &c.) .  Think  of  such  con- 
vocations at  Jerusalem  three  times  a  year.,  when  our  rarel3'-occurring 
little  missionary  gatherings  of  a  few  hundred  or  a  thousand  well- 
nigh  exhaust  the  hospitalities  of  our  largest  cities !     It  will  also 


182  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

be  recollected  that  the  first  great  outpouring  of  the  Spirit,  when 
so  many  were  converted  and  baptized,  occurred  at  one  of  these 
festivals,  —  that  of  the  Pentecost, — when  there  were  dwelling  at 
Jerusalem  (having  come  for  a  two-days'  celebration)  "Jews,  de- 
vout men,  from  every  nation  under  heaven,"  &c.  Now,  could  not 
our  friends  find  in  these  multitudinous  and  real  difficulties  sufficient 
proof  that  never  could  such  festivals  have  been  held  with  such 
frequency  in  such  a  place  as  Jerusalem  ?  Methinks  the  matter  of 
"  clothes  "  would  be  found,  if  not  "  sufficient  to  decide  the  whole 
question,"  j'et  sufficiently  disturbing  to  their  equanimity.  Who 
can  tell  where  or  how  they  hved,  what  they  could  get  to  eat 
during  their  long  staj^,  or  where  find  a  place  to  sleep  ?  We  have 
seen  it  stated  that  Dr.  Jennings  (in  his  "Jewish  Antiquities") 
supposes  the  strangers  in  the  festivals  were  turned  into  the  fields 
.  to  sleep  with  the  cattle  !  At  the  seven-days'  feast  of  Tabernacles 
they  all  dwelt  in  booths.  Where  could  those  millions  find  every 
year,  in  that  sparsel}- wooded,  "bare,  and  dreary"  country, 
branches  and  boughs  enough  to  make  booths  for  them  all  to  dwell 
in  ?  ^    How  could  the  thousands  of  defiled  ones  find  water  accommo- 

1  The  country  around  Jerusalem,  and  so  Judaea  generally,  may  have 
been  better  wooded  formerly  than  now :  and  yet  there  appears  to  have  been, 
in  David's  time,  a  lack  of  timber-trees  in  Palestine  for  the  building  of  the 
temple ;  and  Titus,  we  know,  experienced  the  greatest  difficulty  in  carrying 
on  his  brief  siege,  A.D.  70,  through  the  scarcity  of  trees  around  Jerusalem. 
"  The  carriage  of  materials,"  says  Josephus,  when  speaking  of  the  latter 
part  of  the  siege,  "  was  a  difficult  task,  since  all  the  trees  that  were  about 
the  city  within  the  distance  of  one  hundred  furlongs  "  (over  eleven  miles) 
"had  their  branches  cut  off  already  in  order  to  make  their  former  banks," 
or  embankments,  which  the  Romans  built  up  against  the  enemies'  fortifica- 
tions. Lieut.  Conder  (in  his  Tent-Work  in  Palestine)  remarks  concerning 
Jerusalem,  "  a  stone  town  in  mountains,"  that  "  the  surrounding  chalk-hills 
are  barren  and  shapeless."  He  also  states,  that,  while  "  the  western  slopes 
[of  Palestine],  exposed  to  the  fresh  sea-breeze,  are  covered  with  shrubs,  the 
eastern  are  bare  and  desert.  This  natural  phenomenon  is  no  doubt  un- 
changeable ;  and  a  minute  examination  of  the  country  tends  to  show  that 
the  eastern  districts,  which  are  now  without  wood,  were  also  treeless  in 
Bible  times"  (vol.  ii.  p.  322).  "All  the  houses,"  says  Dr.  Yan  Lennep 
(in  his  Bible  Lands,  p.  28),  "  were  built,  as  they  are  still,  of  sun-dried  bricks, 
or  of  stone.  .  .  .  Timber  has  now  become  even  more  scarce  than  anciently. 
From  the  want  of  beams  and  rafters,  which  once  supported  the  roofs,  the 
latter  have  to  be  arched;  which  peculiarity  is  strikingly  seen  in  all  large 
pictures  of  modern  Jerusalem.     It  is  a  city  of  domes. 

"  There  was  no  such  thing  as  a  wooden  house,  except  for  a  king;  and 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  183 

dations  in  Jerusalem  sufficient  to  wash  their  flesh  and  their  clothes, 
to  say  nothing  of  the  countless  lesser  purifications,  before  partak- 
ing of  the  passover,  or  before  going  into  the  temple-grounds  ?  In 
John  xi.  55  we  read  that  ' '  many  went  .up  to  Jerusalem  out  of 
the  country  before  the  passover,  that  they  might  purify  them- 
selves"  (see  also  Num.  ix.  10  ;  2  Chron.  xxx.  17,  18).  Josephus 
also  mentions  it  as  an  aggravating  criminal  circumstance,  that, 
during  the  siege,  some  soldiers  who  were  engaged  in  strife,  and 
who,  as  corpse-defiled  men,  naturally  needed  a  very  thorough  ablu- 
tionary  purification,  were  admitted  into  the  inner  courts  of  the 
temple-grounds  without  having  first  purified  themselves,  or,  as 
Milman  phrases  it,  ' '  without  having  performed  their  ablutions  ' ' 
( ' '  Wars  "  5  :  3,1).  And  what  about  the  poor  ' '  camels  and  asses , ' ' 
that  needed  the  River  Jordan  and  ^non's  "many  waters"  to 
slake  their  thirst  ?  ^  What  will  become  of  them  during  their  pro- 
Solomon's  house  of  forty-five  cedar  pillars,  and  cedar  beams  upon  them, 
must  have  been  more  wonderful  to  the  people  than  if  built  of  marble,  not 
merely  on  account  of  the  quality  of  the  wood,  but  from  its  being  built 
wholly  of  timber.  Then,  too,  as  has  already  been  observed,  fuel  was,  and 
still  is,  scarce." 

^  Charles  Taylor,  editor  of  Calmet's  Bible  Dictionary,  in  his  immersion- 
pouring  "theory,"  as  developed  in  his  Facts  and  Evidences  on  the  Subject 
of  Baptism,  finds  a  special  use  for  ^non's  many  waters,  or  "streams"  as 
he  is  pleased  to  interpret  it.  While  acknowledging  that  "plunging  is  one 
sense  of  the  term  baptism,"  he  yet  holds  that  the  baptism  proper  was  pour- 
ing, but  that  the  rite  consisted  of  two  parts ;  the  baptism,  whether  Judaic, 
Johannic,  Christie,  or  patristic,  being  generally  preceded  by  immersion,  or 
washing,  as  symbolical  of  death,  while  itself  was  significant  of  the  resurrec- 
tion, or  newness  of  life.  "Thus  John  the  Baptist  might  easily  baptize  a 
thousand  persons  in  succession;  but  he  required  several  streams  in  which 
many  might  be  bathing  themselves  or  others  at  the  same  time,  to  whom,  as 
they  approached  him,  he  administered  baptism  by  pouring.  There  is  no 
difficulty  in  admitting  that  three  thousand  persons  might  thus  be  added  to 
the  church  by  baptism  in  one  day;  since  those  who  administered  the  ritual 
pouring  had  no  occasion  to  engage  in  the  previous  washing  "  (Apos.  Bap., 
p.  143).  How  hard  it  is  for  some  persons  to  learn  that  the  Greek  has  words 
which  mean  specifically  and  properly  to  sprinkle  and  to  pour,  and  that 
&apiti20  can  legitimately  do  neither!  In  regard  to  the  plain  and  usual  im- 
port of  baptizo,  Rev.  H.  L.  Gear  truthfully  says,  "It  is  impossible  to  state 
in  the  Greek  language  the  fact  that  Christ  was  immersed,  supi^osing  it  to 
be  a  fact  which  the  inspired  penman  desired  to  record,  by  the  use  of  any 
word  more  clearly  explicit  than  baptizo ;  and  equally  impossible,  in  that 
language,  to  require  immersion  as  a  duty,  if  it  were  sought  to  be  so  re- 
quired." 


184  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

traded  stay  in  such  a  place  as  Jerusalem,  where  there  is  no  rain 
for  six  months  of  the  3'ear,  and  the  Ceclron  is  dried  up,  and  the 
earth  parched  like  ashes  ?  But  we  pass  these  and  other  diflficulties 
over  to  our  friends,  who,  b}"  long  experience,  know  so  well  what 
to  do  with  them ;  simply  remarking,  that,  nowithstanding  all  the 
difficulties  thej  could  conjure  up  and  set  forth,  the  fact  still  re- 
mains, that  all  these  numerously- attended  festivals  were  thus  ob- 
served, that  the  many  defiled  ones  had  abundant  opportunities  for 
ablution  and  lustration,  that  the  many  camels  and  asses  doubtless 
survived,  and  that  the  three  thousand  souls,  compared  to  three 
million,  are,  as  it  were,  but  ".  a  drop  in  the  bucket." 

But  providing  there  was  plent}"  of  water  at  Jerusalem  for  im- 
mersing the  three  thousand,  yet  Dr,  Dale  thinks  the  deadly  enemies 
of  Christ  and  of  His  followers  would  hardly  be  polite  enough  to 
put  the  cit}'  water-pools  at  theii"  disposal  ' '  for  the  administration 
of  the  distinctive  rite  of  this  hated  sect."  "  If  there  were  baths," 
say  Messrs.  Cooke  and  Towne,  "  the  Jews  would  sooner  have 
opened  them  to  swine  than  to  the  followers  of  the  hated  Nazarene." 
But  pohteness  was  certainly  the  order  of  the  day  during  these 
great  national  festivals,  else  they  never  could  have  been  held. 
Ever}-  house  in  Jerusalem  was  thrown  wide  open,  and  hospitaUties 
were  extended  to  all,  without  distinction  and  without  reward.  And 
Luke,  moreover,  teUs  us  (Acts  ii.  47)  that  the  believers  at  that 
time  "  Jiad  favor  with  all  the  people."  Professor  Hackett,  in  his 
commentar}'  on  the  Acts,  sa^'s,  "It  is  proper  to  add  (against 
Alford),  that  the  pools,  so  numerous  and  large,  which  encircled 
Jerusalem,  as  both  those  still  in  use  and  the  remains  of  others 
testify  at  the  present  da}',  afforded  ample  means  for  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  rite.  The  habits  of  the  East,  as  ever}^  traveller 
knows,  would  present  no  obstacle  to  such  a  use  of  the  pubUc 
reservoirs." 

But  Dr.  Dale  tells  us  that  the  apostles  could  not  have  immersed 
all  the  three  thousand  "within  that  da}^"  "How,"  inquires 
Hutchings,  "  could  the  twelve  immerse  their  two  hundred  and  fifty 
apiece  in  one  afternoon,  and  before  dark?"  "It  would  require 
miraculous  "despatch,"  say  Messrs.  Cooke  and  Towne,  "to  get 
through  with  aU  the  essential  preliminaries  in  less  than  half  a  da.y. 
Now,  the  apostles  had  two  hundred  and  fift}'  persons  each.  If  we 
suppose  them  to  have  continued  immersing  without  any  cessation, 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  185 

and  at  the  rate  of  one  a  minute,  the  da^^  must  have  ended  before 
their  task  was  done."  Wolff,  who  seems  to  have  a  special  fondness 
for  the  avoirdupois  table,  says  that  "  each  of  the  apostles  would 
have  had  a  load  of  six  hundred  quintals  of  human  flesh"  (two 
hundred  and  fifty  persons  at  two  hundred  and  fort}'  pounds  each  ! 
Infants,  surely,  must  have  been  excluded  from  this  baptism  !  But 
did  his  scales  weigh  correctly?)  "  to  lift  up  in  the  space  of  a  few 
hours.  .  .  .  Think  of  the  whole  apostolate  and  the  whole  church 
of  Jerusalem  sunk  all  the  afternoon  in  water  up  to  the  waist,  and 
at  times  up  to  the  neck,  in  order  to  grasp  in  their  arms  the  bodies 
of  three  thousand  men,  to  throw  them  back,  immerse  them,  and 
place  them  upright  again !  "  And  Professor  Stuart  asks,  "  Would 
one  da}',  or  rather  some  three-quarters  of  a  da}',  suffice  to  perform 
such  a  work  ?  On  the  supposition  that  only  the  apostles  baptized, 
and  granting,  moreover,  that  Peter  ended  his  sermon  at  nine  o'clock 
in  the  morning  (whereas  he  onl}'  began  it  then) ,  the  consequence 
would  be,  that  for  the  remaining  nine  hours  of  the  da}',  or  five  hun- 
dred and  forty  minutes,  each  apostle  must  have  baptized,  on  an 
average,  one  in  about  two  minutes.  .  .  .  However,  I  concede  there 
are  some  points  left  undetermined,  and  which  may  seem  to  aid  those 
who  differ  from  me,  in  reply  to  these  remarks.  It  is  true  that  we 
do  not  know  that  baptism  was  performed  by  the  apostles  only,  nor 
that  all  the  three  thousand  were  baptized  before  the  going-down  of 
the  sun.  The  work  may  have  extended  into  the  evening  ;  and  so, 
many  being  engaged  in  it,  and  more  time  being  given,  there  was  a 
possibility  that  the  work  in  question  should  be  performed,  although 
immersion  was  practised."  This  candid  concession  is  all  we  need. 
All  the  difficulties,  magnified  to  the  utmost,  do  not  "involve  an 
impossibility,"  and  hence  are  not  "decisive"  against  immersion. 
We  may  here  state  that  Dr.  Dale  finds  another  difficulty  in  the  fact 
that  "the  dipping  of  females  into  water  publicly  by  men  was 
deemed  by  that  age  an  impropriety."  Well,  if  this  were  so,  and 
if  females  were  "  dipped  "  on  this  occasion,  then  we  ma}'  suppose 
it  was  done  privately.  The  question  of  baptismal  clothing  troubles 
all  our  friends,  of  course.  Possibly,  however,  these  festival-jour- 
neying and  festival-keeping  Jews  knew  how  to  manage  this  busi- 
ness better  and  easier  than  our  friends  imagine. 

Professor  Stuart  says,  truly  enough,  that  "  some  points  are  here 
left  undetermined."      The  version  which  our  friends  use  reads 


186  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

plain  enough  :  "  And  there  were  baptized  on  that  day  in  Jerusa- 
lem, b}^  the  apostles,  about  three  thousand  souls."  Accepting  our 
common  version,  we  are  left  in  some  uncertainty  whether  all  the 
three  thousand  were  baptized  then  and  there,  and  by  the  apostles. 
Meyer  suggests  that  probably  John's  disciples  may  have  been 
present,  and  we  are  not  sure  that  thej'  needed  to  be  re-baptized. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  any  of  the  apostles  who  were  baptized 
\)y  John  were  re-baptized  hj  the  Saviour.  There  is  no  intimation 
given  that  Apollos,  who  knew  only  the  baptism  of  John,  was  re- 
baptized  b}^  Aquila,  but  only  that  he  and  his  wife  PriscOla  "  ex- 
pounded the  way  of  God  to  him  more  perfect^."  *  In  Christian 
knowledge  and  activity,  and  in  fervency  of  spirit,  he  stood  on  a 
far  higher  plane  than  did  the  twelve  Johannean  disciples  at  Ephe- 
sus,  who,  as  is  commonly  supposed,  were  re-baptized.  "In  the 
whole  New  Testament,"  says  Mej-er,  "outside  of  this  instance 
(Acts  xix.  5) ,  there  is  no  example  of  the  re-baptism  of  scny  disciple 
of  John."  "We  have,  therefore,  never  3'et  seen  the  proof,  and  we 
never  shall,  that  all  of  the  "  about  three  thousand  "  who  on  "  that 
day  were  added  "  to  the  number  of  Christ's  disciples  were  baptized 
either  on  "  that  day,"  or  in  Jerusalem  at  all.  The  inspired  state- 
ment as  regards  the  baptism  is  simpl}'  this :  ' '  Then  they  that 
(gladly)  received  his  word  were  baptized."  This  alone  determines 
one  thing  concerning  the  baptized ;  namelj^,  that  the}'  were  of 
sufficient  age  and  understanding  to  exercise  repentance  and  ' '  re- 
ceive "  the  apostle's  word,  and  hence  that  no  precedent  can  here 
be  found  for  6a6e-baptism. 

Again,  as  above  stated,  we  do  not  know  who  and  how  many  ad- 
ministered the  rite  ;  and  the  knowledge  of  this  is  a  vital  point  in 
our  friends'  argument.  "Jesus  baptized  not,  but  his  disciples." 
"  Lay -baptism,"  sa3's  a  writer  in  Smith's  "  Dictionary-  of  Chiistian 
Biography"  (vol.  i.,  article  "Baptism"),  "would  seem  to  have 
been  authorized  b}'  Christ,  and  deacon-baptism  by  the  apostles." 
There  is  at  least  no  certain  proof  or  e^ddence  that  the  twelve  them- 
selves baptized  any  one  of  the  three  thousand,  or  that  thej'  ever 
baptized  anj'  one  after  this.  Thej'  would  have  fulfilled  their  "  com- 
mission" had  the}'  commissioned  others  to  baptize,  even  as  Peter 
commanded  "the  baptism  of  the  Gentile  converts,  dcA'olving  the 
•ser^4ce  on  his  attendants"  (Hackett).  Dr.  Doddridge  thinks 
"the  office  was  generally  assigned  to  inferiors,  as  requiring  no 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  187 

extraordinarj'  abilities,  and  as  being  attended  with  some  trouble 
and  inconvenience,  especiallj'  where  immersion  was  used,  as  I  sup- 
pose it  often,  though  not  constantl}^,  was."  From  apostolic  history 
we  learn  that  the  evangelist  Philip  baptized  ;  and,  without  doubt, 
the  "devout  disciple"  Ananias  baptized  the  apostle  Paul.  The 
apostle  himself  baptized  a  few  of  the  Corinthian  converts,  Crispus 
and  Gains,  and  the  household  of  Stephanas.  But  Christ  had 
"  much  people  in  that  city."  Who  baptized  the  believing  hoicse- 
liold  of  Crispus?  Who  baptized  Fortunatus,  Achaicus,  the  family 
of  Chloe,  and  the  "  many  "  other  Corinthian  converts?  Could  not 
the  apostle  employ  in  this  work  not  oxAy  Silas  and  Timothy-,  but 
Aquila  and  such  eminent  Christian  laymen  as  he?  And,  if  the 
apostles  themselves  could  not  baptize  the  pentecostal  converts  in  a 
given  time,  could  they  not  "  authorize  and  appoint"  some  of  the 
hundred  and  twent}^  brethren  in  Jerusalem,  some  of  the  seventy 
missionary  disciples  of  Jesus,  some  of  the  "over  five  hundred 
brethren"  (most  of  whom  were  doubtless  present,  and  with  many 
of  whom  the  apostles  must  have  been  well  acquainted) ,  to  help 
them  in  this  matter  ?  Others  than  Baptists  have  advanced  a  simi- 
lar view.  Thus  Buddeus :  "When  those  three  thousand  persons 
that  were  brought  to  repentance  in  one  day  by  the  preaching  of- 
Peter  were  to  be  baptized,  they  were  led  to  another  place,  and 
might  be  baptized  by  the  apostles,  by  others  in  company  with 
them,  and  also  by  the  seventy  disciples  ;  for  though  Luke  has  not 
mentioned  this,  3'et  we  cannot  thence  infer  that  it  is  not  a  fact, 
seeing  many  circumstances  are  frequently  omitted  for  the  sake  of 
brevity."  Dr.  Samuel  Davidson  remarks,  that  "  in  Acts  ii.  38-41, 
when  thi'ee  thousand  were  converted  in  a  day  to  Christianity,  .  .  . 
the  number  of  the  converts  renders  it  probable  that  many  of  the 
hundred  and  twent}"  disciples  assisted  at  the  general  baptism." 
Olshausen,  who  supposes  the  baptism  on  this  occasion  was  not 
administered  publicl}',  as  aftei'wards,  in  rivers,  fountains,  &c.,  but 
by  sprinkling  or  b}'  immersion  in  private  houses,  yet  speaks  of 
the  "help  at  baptizing"  furnished  hy  these  hundred  and  twenty 
disciples.  He  also  states  that  the  apostles  themselves  did  not 
baptize  any  one  after  this  Pentecost. 

Besides,  have  our  friends  estimated  the  time  required  for  "  any 
reverent  application  of  water,"  pouring  or  sprinkling,  performed 
upon  each  person,  singl}',  of  all  these  three  thousand,  with  the 


188  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

pronouncing  in  each  case  of  the  full  baptismal  formula ?  Perhaps 
not  much  less  time  would  be  needed,  we  should  say,  than  for 
a  full  immersion.  Matthies  (in  his  "  Baptismatis  Expositio," 
p.  128)  says  that  Reiche  went  so  far  as  to  assert  that  no  formula 
could  have  been  used  in  the  baptism  of  the  three  thousand.  With 
a  scarcity  of  administrators,  and  lack  of  time,  we  fear  our  friends 
who  use  only  a  "  compend  "  of  baptism  would  be  tempted  to 
adopt  the  wholesale  Sandwich-Island  method,  where,  some  years 
ago,  a  much  less  number  (1,705)  were  on  one  occasion  sprinkled 
in  crowds  with  a  brush  or  broom,  and  then  the  baptismal  formula 
was  pronounced  once  over  them  all,  —  a  "  mode  of  baptism  ' '  which 
the  Andover  professors,  as  we  have  heard,  thought  "  more  honored 
in  the  breach  than  the  observance." 

Some  speak,  as  we  have  seen,  of  the  needed  time  for  the  exami- 
nation and  instruction  of  so  man^^  previous  to  baptism.  But 
their  baptism  was  conditioned  simply  on  their  declared  repentance, 
and  their  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  ;  while  their  further  Chris- 
tian instruction,  as  Meyer  says,  was  a  subsequent  matter.  —  See 
Acts  ii.  42. 

We  have  seen  some  of  the  points,  which,  as  Stuart  concedes,  are 
here  left  undetermined ;  which  undetermined  points  preclude  the 
affirmation  of  the  impossibility  of  immersion.  Bloomfield  says, 
"  We  need  not  suppose  all  (of  the  three  thousand)  were  baptized." 
Rev.  Lj'man  Abbott  (in  his  "Notes  on  the  Acts")  saj's,  "The 
three  thousand  were  not  baptized  uecessaril}-  on  the  same  daj^ ;  " 
that  there  were  in  Jerusalem  ' '  abundant  pools  for  bathing  (John 
V.  4,  ix.  7)  ;  "  and  that  we  "  cannot  safety  say  there  was  not  time 
or  place  for  immersion."  Dr.  Starck,  court-preacher  at  Darm- 
stadt, remarks  (p.  9),  that,  "  in  the  history  of  those  converted  by 
Peter's  preaching  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  there  is  nothing  which 
compels  us  to  infer  that  all  these  were  baptized  on  the  spot,  and  on 
the  same  day."  Bishop  AVilson  sa^-s,  "  '  The  same  da}','  —  that  is, 
at  that  time,  on  account  of  that  sermon  ;  though  they  might  not  all 
be  baptized  in  one  daj',  but  were  at  that  time  converted."  So  Dr. 
Dollinger  :  "  It  is  not  said  that  the  three  thousand  converts  were 
baptized  the  same  day,  but  onl}'  '  on  that  day  were  added  about 
three  thousand  souls  : '  i.e.,  their  conversion  and  belief  took  place 
on  that  da}'."  Such,  also,  was  the  opinion  of  Venema  and  Bossuet. 
Professor  Hackett  says  they  were  baptized,  "not  necessarily  at 


STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM.  189 

once  after  the  discourse,  but  naturally  during  the  same  da}-,  if  we 
would  unite  the  next  clause  closety  with  this.  But  the  compendi- 
ous form  of  the  narrative  would  allow  us,  with  some  editors,  to 
place  a  colon  iDetween  the  two  clauses  ;  and  then  the  baptism  could 
be  regarded  as  subsequent  to  prosetetJiesmi,  taking  place  at  such 
time  and  under  such  circumstances  as  the  convenience  of  the  par- 
ties might  require." 

And,  notwithstanding  a  few  talk  of  the  impossibility  of  the  thing, 
we  yet  believe,  that  had  Luke  been  endowed  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost with  the  power  to  speak  and  write  our  language,  and  that  in 
his  English  edition  of  ' '  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  ' '  he  had  plainly 
recorded  these  words,  "  The}',  therefore,  having  received  Peter's 
word,  were  immersed,  and  on  that  day  there  were  added  about 
three  thousand  souls,"  scarcelj^  a  Pedobaptist  Christian  in  the 
EngUsh-speaking  world  would  think  of  offsetting  the^e  incon- 
veniences and  difficulties  against  the  established,  usual,  proper 
meaning  of  the  word  "  immersed."  But  the  native  Greeks,  who 
have  ever  known  their  language  as  we  do  ours,  as  also  "  the  Greek 
fathers,  and  the  Latin  ones  who  were  familiar  with  the  Greek,"  — 
all  of  whom,  as  Professor  Stuart  says,  undeniablj'  "understood 
the  usual  import  of  the  word  baptizo.,"  — have  ever  regarded  that 
word  as  simply  and  plainly-  significant  of  immersion ;  and  all  the 
inconveniences  and  difficulties,  real  and  imaginary,  which  have  so 
troubled  our  friends,  even  though  augmented  a  hundred-fold,  would 
not  have  in  their  minds  the  weight  of  a  feather  as  against  the 
settled,  usual,  and  proper  meaning  of  that  word. 

History,  it  is  said,  repeats  itself;  and  it  is  a  singular  and  inter- 
esting fact  that  other  three  thousands  since  the  apostles'  time 
have  been  immersed  in  one  day.  Our  first  reference  shall  be  to 
English  history.  La  the  centre  of  a  remarkable  fountain  in  the 
north  of  England,  called  "  the  Lad3''s  Well,"  there  stands  to-day 
a  large  crucifix,  on  the  base  of  which  is  the  following  inscription  : 
"  Li  this  place  Paulinus,  the  bishop,  baptized  three  thousand 
Northumbrians,  Easter  DCXXVII."  A  view  of  this  fountain  and 
crucifix  is  given  in  the  frontispiece  of  Dr.  Cathcart's  "Baptism 
of  the  Ages  and  of  the  Nations  ;  "  and  a  description  of  Paulinus' 
baptisms  is  found  on  pp.  26-32  of  the  same  work.  We  now  pass 
over  to  the  continent,  and  go  back  in  history  some  thirteen  dec- 
ades of  years.     Gregory  of  Tours,  in  his  "  Historia  Fraucorum," 


190  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

lib.  ii.  cap.  31,  tells  us,  that,  in  A.D.  496,  Remigius,  bishop  of 
Rheims,  baptized  Clovis  (Chloclovechus) ,  king  of  France,  and 
"more  than  three  thousand  of  his  army."  This  heathen  king, 
when  engaged  in  battle  with  the  barbarians,  and  about  to  be  re- 
pulsed, thought  of  the  God  of  his  wife,  and  exclaimed,  with  eyes 
elevated  to  heaven,  "  Jesu  Christe,  quern  Chrotechildis  prsedicat 
esse  filium  Dei  vivi,"  &c.  ("Jesus  Christ,  whom  Clotilda  pro- 
claims to  be  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  ...  if  thou  wilt  grant 
me  victory  over  these  enemies  ...  I  will  believe  in  thee,  and  in 
thy  name  be  baptized.")  He  gained  the  victor}^,  and  was  baptized 
with  more  than  three  thousand  of  his  army  ;  and  this  example  was 
followed  by  the  greater  part  of  the  nation.  According  to  Dr. 
Sears  (in  "Christian  Review,"  vol.  iii.  p.  92),  Hincmar  (a  suc- 
cessor and  biographer  of  Remigius)  and  other  historians  confirm 
in  substance  the  statements  of  Gregory.  —  See  further,  on  Clovis' 
baptism,  Cathcart's  "  Baptism  of  the  Ages,"  p.  82,  seq.  Neander 
(in  his  "Church  Histor}',"  vol.  iii.  p.  8)  simplj^  says,  "It  is 
reported  that  more  than  three  thousand  of  his  army  were  baptized 
at  one  time." 

We  now  go  back  still  earher,  to  the  night  preceding  Easter  Sun- 
day, "  the  great  Sabbath,"  April  16,  A.D.  400,  when  in  Constan- 
tinople, and  in  troublous  times,  Clnysostom's  presbyters,  during 
his  domestic  imprisonment,  baptized  "about  three  thousand" 
catechumens.  And  as  Chrysostom,  in  common  with  all  the  church 
fathers  of  that  period,  practised  the  trine  immersion  in  baptism 
with  all  the  then  customar}^  renunciations,  exorcisms,  insufflations, 
responses,  confessions,  and  manifold  attendant  ceremonies  of  con- 
secration, unction,  signing  of  the  cross,  &c.,  we  may  say  that  virtu- 
aU}"  more  than  three  times  three  thousand  were  baptized  during  that 
night  in  the  apostohc  and  modern  Baptist  iv&j.  "  On  Easter  Eve 
the  church  of  Chrj'sostom  and  the  friendly  clergy  met  together,  as 
was  the  custom,  to  spend  the  night  in  vigils,  and  to  greet  the  first 
rays  of  Easter  morning.  With  them  were  assembled  three  thou- 
sand 5'oung  Christians  who  were  to  receive  baptism.  While  they 
were  engaged  in  singing  and  pra^'er,  armed  troops,  without  the 
knowledge  of  the  emperor,  and  by  whose  command  is  not  known, 
at  nine  o'clock  in  the  evening,  broke  into  the  church,  rushed  upon 
the  choir,  and  proceeded  to  thrust  out  the  assembled  church  and 
clergy  with  such  violence,  tliat  the  font  and  the  vessels  of  the  altar 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  191 

were  overturned,  and  the  blood  of  the  wounded  mingled  with  the 
baptismal  waters.  The  congregation  repaired  to  the  halls  of  a 
neighboring  bath,  and  the  church  on  the  next  morning  stood 
empty."  ^  "  It  happened  that  the  emperor  went  out  that  day  to 
divert  himself  in  a  meadow  adjoining  the  city,  where  he  espied  a 
field  covered  all  over  with  white.  These  were  the  catechumens 
who  had  been  baptized  the  night  before,  and  had  then  (as  the  cus- 
tom was  in  the  primitive  chiu'ch)  their  white  garments  upon  them, 
and  were  in  number  near  three  thousand.  .  .  .  The  emperor  was 
strangely  surprised  at  the  sight,  and  asked  the  guards  who  tiiey 
were ;  who,  the  more  to  exasperate  him  against  them,  told  him 
they  were  a  conventicle  of  heretics.  A  party  of  soldiers  were  im- 
mediately drawn  out,  and  ordered  to  go  and  disperse  the  assembly  " 
(William  Cave's  "Lives  of  the  Fathers,"  p.  496).  "The  em- 
peror," says  Palladius  (in  his  "  Yit.  Chrj's.,"  cap.  9),  "  was  as- 
tonished at  the  sight  of  the  newlj'-baptized ;  for  they  were  about 
three  thousand."  ^    Here,  at  least,  is  a  veritable  instance  of  the 


1  See  p.  185  of  Perthes'  Life  of  John  Chrysostom  (from  wliich.  tlie  above 
extract  is  taken),  translated  by  Alvah  Hovey  and  D.  B.  Ford;  also  Mean- 
der's Life  of  Chrysostom,  vol.  ii.  p.  225,  and  the  works  of  Chrysostom, 
Montfaucon's  edition,  vol.  iii.  p.  618,  and  vol.  xiii.  p.  38;  also  the  above- 
mentioned  article  of  Dr.  Sears.  We  have  as  yet  seen  no  authority  for 
Perthes'  statement,  that  "  the  font  was  overturned  "  by  the  violence  of  the 
soldiers;  although  the  overturning  of  the  baths  {kolianbethrai)  was  not,  we 
suppose,  an  impossible  thing.  Chrysostom  himself,  describing  this  affair 
in  a  letter  to  Pope  Innocent,  says  that  "  the  baths  were  filled  with  blood; " 
and  Palladius,  a  contemporary  and  biogi-apher  of  Chrysostom,  records  the 
testimony,  as  of  an  eye-witness,  that  "the  font"  (kolumbethra)  "was 
stained  with  blood." 

2  We  give  herewith  the  Latin  translation  of  Montfaucon's  edition,  vol. 
xiii.  p.  38:  "Die  sequent!  egressus  Imperator  ut  sese  exerceret  in  vicino 
campo,  vidit  agrum  .  .  .  non  consitiim  et  candentem  et  stupefactus  adspectu 
coloris  nuper  baptizatorum  (erant  enim  ad  tria  ferme  millia),"  &c.  And 
we  may  here  state  that  Palladius  gives  the  number  twice  as  "about  three 
thousand."  No  well-informed  jDerson  will  deny  that  Chrysostom's  baptisms 
were  immersions.  — See  Conant's  Exs.  184-186,  229,  230.  Professor  Conant 
also  gives  some  seventeen  examples  of  classic  usage  from  Chrysostom.  For 
an  account  of  the  immersion  of  a  still  larger  number  in  a  single  day  by 
Otho  or  Otto,  the  apostle  of  the  Pomeranians,  see  Christian  Eeview,  vol.  iii. 
p.  92,  seq.,  art.  by  Dr.  Sears.  That  Otto  used  no  "  compend  "  when  he 
baptized  those  great  multitudes  is  evident  from  the  following  description 
of  his  profuse  sweating  during  the  process:  "  Licet  solos  mares  pueros  tin- 


192  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

immersion  of  "  about  three  thousand  "  in  one  night,  and  under 
greater  difficulties  than  an}'  which  attended  the  Pentecostal  bap- 
tism, as  may  be  further  seen  in  Note  IV.,  end  of  the  volume. 

geret,  ssepenumero  sudantem  aspeximus,  adeo  profecto,  ut  alba  ejus  ab 
humeris  usque  ad  umbilicum  ante  et  retro,  sudore  manaret.  Saspe  etiam 
ipsius  ministerii  nimiete  lassatus  brevi  sessione  vires  recuijerans  modicum- 
que  sedendo  respirans,  quasi  animosus  operator  et  strenuus  denuo  se  suble- 
vabat  in  idem  opus  sibi  dulcissimum,  gratias  agens  omnipotenti  Deo,  quod 
ipsius  prsestante  dementia  tot  manipulos  in  ejus  liorrea  cum  sudore  ac 
lassitudine  sua  congereret."  The  renowned  bishop  of  Milan,  Ambrose,  we 
suppose,  would  have  taken  it  easier ;  for  it  is  related  of  him  that  he  could 
baptize  nearly  five  times  as  many  in  the  same  time  as  any  other  bishop  who 
succeeded  him.  For  an  account  of  the  baptism  of  other  large  numbers,  we 
refer  our  readers  to  Dr.  Cathcart's  Baptism  of  the  Ages. 


Note.  —  After  this  chapter  had  issued  from  the  press,  and  most  of  the 
succeeding  chapters  had  been  placed  in  the  printers'  hands,  we  received  a 
new  work,  kindred  in  general  character  to  the  one  last  mentioned,  entitled 
"  The  Act  of  Baptism,"  by  Eev.  HEisriiY  S.  Bukkage  of  Portland,  Me., 
and  published  by  the  American  Baptist  Publication  Society.  The  author 
goes  over  substantially  the  same  ground  as  Dr.  Cathcart,  only  from  an  earlier 
starting-point,  in  chronological  order,  with  a  wider  outlook,  and  with  mi- 
nuter steps.  It  appears  to  be  throughout  a  scholarly,  able,  and  reliable 
treatise  on  "  what  has  been  the  act  of  baptism  in  the  history  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church;"  and  we  can  only  regret  our  inability  to  avail  ourselves,  to 
any  considerable  extent,  of  the  benefit  of  its  pages. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  193 


CHAPTER  XXII. 


BAPTISM   OF  THE   EUNUCH. 


"And  they  went  down  both  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch; 
and  he  baptized  him.  And  when  they  came  up  out  of  the  water,"  &c. — 
Acts  viii.  38,  39. 

DR.  DALE  translates  this  narrative  somewhat  ad  sensum,  and 
this,  too,  according  to  his  own  sense  of  the  passage ;  and 
hence  his  translation  differs  materially  from  that  of  Eang  James' 
version,  and  probably  from  that  which  Queen  Victoria's  translators 
will  give.  The  substance  of  it  is  this,  —  that,  as  Philip  and  the 
eunuch  were  journej^ng  in  the  chariot,  they  came  upon  or  over  a 
little  water ;  whereupon  they  both  stepped  out  of  the  chariot  to  or 
into  the  water ;  and,  after  Philip  had  baptized  the  eunuch  (into 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  by  pouring  from  his  hand  a  little 
water  on  the  eunuch's  head),  they  both  remounted  the  chariot, 
and  Phihp  was  caught  away  out  of  the  chariot  by  the  Spirit,  even. 
as  Elijah  before  him  had  been  caught  up  in  a  chariot,  &c.  (as  see 
Dale's  "  Christie  Baptism,"  182,  seq.) 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  chariot  occupies  an  important  place  in; 
this  new  version.  "  The  position  of  the  chariot  in  relation  to  the 
water  is  of  vital  importance."  Both  Wolff  and  Dale  assert  that 
the  chariot  "  came  upon  or  over  a  little  water."  It  strikes  me 
that  the  eunuch  could  not  so  well  say,  "  See,  water!  "  when  the 
chariot  was  standing  over  it,  as  when  approaching  it,  and  at  some 
little  distance  off.  And  again:  neither  the  "desert"  through- 
which  the  eunuch  passed,  nor  the  ti  Jiudor  which  gladdened  his 
vision,  indicates  any  scarcity  of  water  for  immersion.  The  Judaean . 
deserts  generallj^  were  not  sand,  but  wilderness,  "without  villages 
or  fixed  habitations;  "  and  the  ti  Jmddr,  according  to  Professor 


194  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

Hackett,  means  "  a  certain  water,  not  some,  as  the  genitive  would 
follow  that  partitive  sense."  Dr.  William  M.  Thomson,  author 
of  "  The  Land  and  the  Book,"  in  describing  the  country  through 
which  Phihp  probably  passed  in  his  journey  from  Samaria  to  Azo- 
tus  (Ashdod,  near  which  place  he  locates  the  baptism  of  the 
eunuch),  says,  "Philip  would  then  have  met  the  chariot  some- 
where south-west  of  Latron.  There  is  a  fine  stream  of  water, 
called  Murubbah,  deep  enough  even  in  June  to  satisfy  the  utmost 
wishes  of  our  Baptist  friends.  This  (Murubbah)  is  merely  a  local 
name  for  the  great  wady  Sm^ur,  given  to  it  on  account  of  copious 
fountains  which  supply  it."  (See  Note  V.,  end  of  the  volume.) 
Our  readers,  perhaps,  will  recollect  the  doctor's  invariable  transla- 
tion of  ejn  as  upon  or  over;  and  so,  according  to  his  philology,  we 
shall  read  in  John  yi.  16  that  the  disciples  went  down  (epi)  upon 
or  over  the  sea,  and  then  entered  into  a  ship  !  One  great  objec- 
tion, in  Dale's  view,  to  our  interpretation,  is,  that  it  fails  to  get 
the  eunuch  either  out  of  or  into  his  chariot.  But,  b}^  placing  the 
chariot  over  the  little  water,  the  dismounting  and  reaching  the 
water  required  but  one  step.  The  verb  Tcatabaino  (to  go  down) 
being  sometimes  in  Greek  literature  applied  to  dismounting  from  a 
horse  or  carriage,  makes,  according  to  Dr.  Dale,  no  provision  for 
walking  down  a  slope  into  the  water.  Just  one  step  is  all  that  it 
will  allow.  Then  Jacob,  we  must  say,  took  a  long  stride  when  he 
went  down  into  Egypt ;  and  the  man  who  went  down  from  Jerusa- 
lem to  Jericho  might  seemingly  have  escaped  the  thieves  ;  and  the 
publican  who  went  down  from  the  temple  to  his  house  justified, 
&c.,  must  have  had  his  domicile  hard  by  the  sanctuary  !  At  least, 
in  the  going-down  of  these  two  personages  into  the  water  there  is, 
we  are  told,  "  no  second  step  on  record."  And  the  same  is  true 
of  the  remounting  from  the  water.  No  wonder  that  the  chariot  is 
made  ' '  the  determining  interpretative  element  in  important  phrase- 
ology in  this  baptism."  But  this,  we  are  sure,  is  quite  enough  to 
give  our  readers  an  insight  into  Dr.  Dale's  "interpretative" 
capacities. 

Professor  Stuart,  it  would  seem,  has  some  doubt  about  his  going 
down  into  the  water.  After  referring  to  a  going-down  to  (eis) 
Capernaum,  to  Egj^pt,  to  Attaha,  to  Troas,  to  Antioch,  to  Cassa- 
Tca  (as  though  none  of  those  places  were  entered),  he  sa3's,  "  On 
the  other  hand,  I  find  but  one  passage  in  the  New  Testament 


STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM.  195 

where  it  (eis  with  Txatahaino)  means  into ;  \\z.,  Rom.  x.  7,  '  Who 
shall  go  down  into  the  abj'ss  ?  '  But  even  here  the  sense  to  is 
good."  Sometimes  good  Homer  nods,  and  it  would  seem  that 
Professor  Stuart  here  was  not  quite  so  wide  awake  as  usual.  He 
certainly  might  have  referred  to  one  clear  example  (Mark  xiii. 
15)  :  "  And  he  that  is  upon  the  house,  let  him  not  go  down  into 
the  house  ' '  (but  make  his  escape  b}^  an  outwaj-) . 

No  one,  we  presume,  will  maintain  that  the  Greek  language  has 
fitter  terms  to  express  the  idea  of  going  down  (not  under,  but) 
into  and  coming  up  out  of  the  water  than  those  which  the  inspired 
historian  has  here  employed.  Nor  will  any  one  maintain  that  it 
was  necessar}'  for  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch  to  go  down  into  the 
water  merely  that  one  might  sprinkle  a  few  drops  of  water  upon 
the  forehead  of  the  other,  while  it  will  be  acknowledged  that  this 
entrance  into  and  exit  out  of  the  water  was  necessary  in  case  of  a 
full  immersion.  No  Baptist,  we  presume,  ever  held  that  the  de- 
scent of  these  two  personages  into  the  water  constituted  of  itself 
a  full  and  proper  immersion.  And  hence  we  need  not  be  told,  as 
Dr.  Miller  and  manj'  others  have  told  us,  that  "  there  is  the  same 
evidence  that  Philip  was  plunged  as  that  the  eunuch  was."  The 
evidence  that  the  eunuch  was  ' '  plunged  ' '  is  the  asserted  fact  that 
Philip  "baptized  him"  after  thej' had  both  descended  into  the 
water.  Nor  do  we  suppose  that  any  Baptist  holds  that  their  de- 
scent into  the  water  does  of  itself  absolutely  prove  the  fact  of  a 
subsequent  immersion.  The}^  might  have  both  gone  down  into  the 
water  "  even  to  the  loins,"  as  Professor  Stuart  says,  in  order  that 
Philip  might  sprinkle  a  few  drops  of  water  on  the  eunuch's  fore- 
head ;  though  the  world,  if  present,  would,  methinks,  have/eZ^  like 
laughing  at  such  a  needless  effort,  j-ea,  at  such  a  ridiculous  per- 
formance. 

Rev.  Mr.  Heaton  concedes  that  the  phraseology  will  take  them 
both  into  the  water,  if  the  sense  of  the  passage  rendered  it  self- 
evident  ;  and  he  further  acknowledges,  that,  if  there  was  any  going 
into  the  water,  it  was  probably  for  immersion.  But,  to  make  an 
entrance  into  water  certain,  he  would  have  Luke  prefix  a  different 
preposition  {eis)  to  the  simple  verb,  or  use  the  adverb  eso  (within) 
before  the  noun.  But  I  am  not  sure  that  these  suggested  improve- 
ments would  not  baptize  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch ;  and  this 
would  be  adding  to  God's  word,  to  say  nothing  of  the  dire  fatality. 


196  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

which,  on  Dale's  theory,  would  attend  this  double  immersion. 
The  simple  verb  of  motion  with  eis  is  amply  sufficient  to  take 
baptizer  and  candidate  far  enough  out  into  the  water  to  effect  a 
"  complete  intusposition  "  in  the  same,  and  it  is  the  height  of 
foil}'  to  imagine  that  eis  (into)  will  onlj'  take  them  to  the  water 
when  such  baptismal  intusposition  is  required.  Mr.  Heaton  him- 
self gives  two  very  good  reasons  why  Luke  and  ourselves  maj^  rest 
satisfied  with  his  phraseolog}'.  One  is,  that  the  word  baptizo  — 
which,  in  its  primary-,  proper,  physical,  and  common  use,  "demands 
intusposition" — makes  the  sense  of  the  passage  ^^self-evident  "  as 
requiring  a  complete  immersion  ;  and,  secondly,  the  verb  katdbaino 
is  ah'eady  provided  with  a  prepositional  prefix,  and  cannot  take 
another.  He  saj's,  however,  that  Luke  need  not  have  stated  the 
"  very  tri'^ial  circumstance  of  going  doion  out  of  the  carriage,  or 
of  going  a  few  feet  down  a  hill."  But  Baptists,  the  world  over, 
always  speak  of  going  down  into  the  vjcUer  when  administering 
the  rite  of  baptism  ;  and  Luke,  as  a  consistent  Baptist,  could  not 
have  omitted  it  here.  If  one  will  but  look  at  Conant's  "  Bap- 
tizein,"  he  will  see  that  this  phrase,  Jcatabaino  eis  to  hudor,  will 
not  only  take  a  man  to  the  water  and  into  the  water,  but  will,  under 
certain  conditions,  sink  him  beneath  the  water.  Cjiil,  bishop  of 
Jerusalem,  says,  "  So  also  thou,  going  down  into  the  water,  and 
in  a  manner  buried  in  the  waters  as  He  in  the  rock,  art  raised 
again,  walking  in  newness  of  life"  (C.  176).  The  same  author 
also  says,  "  You  are  about  to  descend  into  the  baptisterj-  in  order 
to  be  plunged  into  the  water  "  {eis  to  hudor  katabainein) .  The 
like  phraseology  is  found  in  C.  226 :  "  Going  down  into  the  bath 
(loutron)  of  regeneration,  ...  he  comes  up  (anerchomai)  from 
the  baptism,"   &c.^     Mr.   Heaton  may  be  well  assured  that  the 

1  "  Katabaino,  avford  never  signiijing  to  go  under  water "  (Hutchings). 
An  instance  of  a  diving  katabaino  is  adduced  by  Carson,  p.  409,  from 
^sop's  writings:  ""When  Mercuiy,  compassionating  tlie  woodman  who  let 
his  axe  drop  into  the  river,  dived  three  times,  one  of  the  dips  was  by  kata- 
duo,  and  the  other  two  by  katabas.^'  Besides  the 'above  examples  from 
Cyril,  Dr.  Dale  (p.  587  of  his  Ch.  and  Pat.  Baptism)  adduces  two  others,  in 
which  there  is,  as  he  acknowledges,  a  "water-covering  A;aia6airio."  They 
are  both  taken  as  if  from  Clemens  Romanus.  "  For  this  is  the  power  of 
the  imposition  of  hands:  unless  such  invocation"  ( prayer  for  the  baptized 
person)  "  be  made,  he  who  is  baptized  only  descends  into  the  water  as  the 
Jews,  and  only  removes  the  impurity  of  the  body,  not  the  impurity  of  the 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  197 

going  down  into  the  water  and  the  coming  up  oict  of  (eJc,  not  ajxj) 
the  water,  in  connection  with  baptizo^  renders  an  intusposition  in 
water  "self-evident"  and  "  morall}- certain."  I  doubt  whether 
any  Greek  teacher  in  the  world  would  allow  a  pupil,  in  translating 
into  Greek  the  phrase,  went  away  from  the  shore  or  edge  of  the 
water,  to  use  eJc  instead  of  apo. 

Had  it  not  been  for  the  incidental  mention  of  commanding  the 
chariot  to  stop,  one  might  have  supposed  that  Queen  Candace's 
chamberlain  was  pursuing  his  journe}"  alone.  But  he  was  the 
treasurer  of  Ethiopia,  a  state  officer,  and  probably  travelled  in 
state,  and  had  a  retinue  of  attendants  and  serA-ants ;  and  in  his 
long  journey  of  some  eight  hundred  miles,  much  of  the  way  through 
deserts  and  wilderness,  he  doubtless  had  an  ample  suppl}'  of  rai- 
ment, pro\isions,  water,  and  tents,  —  exery  thing,  indeed,  which  a 
travelling  caravan  on  such  a  journey  would  need.  Does  any  one 
suppose  that  such  a  personage  as  he  had  no  accommodations  for 
change  of  clothing,  or  for  sleeping,  in  all  that  long  journe}'?  An}' 
book  of  modern  travels  in  Palestine  will  show  the  need  that  travel- 
lers have  for  full  water-skins,  provisions,  tents,  servants,  &c., 
even  in  their  comparativel}'  short  journey's.  The}'  will  also  show 
how  refreshing  is  a  cool  bath  beneath  that  cloudless  sky,  and  under 
that  burning  sun.  Mr.  Noel  intimates,  that  even  if  the  eunuch's 
wet  under-garments  of  linen  were  dried  upon  his  person,  pro%T.ded 
he  had  thrown  around  him  other  dr}'  clothing,  he  would  have  suf- 
fered no  great  inconvenience.  Perhaps,  in  the  latitude  of  Southern 
Palestine,  he  M^ould  have  deemed  this  even  a  luxur}'.  Of  one 
thing  concerning  him  we  are  well  assured,  "  He  went  on  his  way 
rejoicing." 


soul"  (Apos.  Constitutions,  vii.  44).  And  again:  "This  lie  saj-s,  because 
we  go  doioh  into  the  water  full  of  sins  and  impurity,  and  come  up  bearing 
fruit,"  &c.  (see  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  x.  14.)  All  we  seek  for,  however,  iu 
our  passage,  is  a  water-entering  katabaino.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  uses,  not 
katabas  eis,  but  en,  in  describing  the  baptism  of  Christ  in  the  Jordan.  His 
language  is,  "The  dragon  was  in  the  waters,  according  to  Job"  (xl.  18  of 
the  Seventy),  —  "he  that  taketh  up  the  Jordan  in  his  mouth.  Since,  there- 
fore, it  was  necessary  to  crush  the  heads  of  the  dragon.  He,  going  doicn  hi 
the  waters,  bound  the  strong  one,  that  we  might  have  power  to  tread  on 
serpents  and  scorpions."  For  further  examples,  see  Conant's  Baptizein, 
228,  229,  &c.     On  anabalno,  as  emerging,  &c,  see  Chap.  X.  of  this  volume. 


198  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

If  it  be  true,  as  some  one  informed  Mr.  Heaton,  that  it  would 
take,  to  effect  a  certain  kind  of  baptism,  "  less  water  than  may  be 
put  upon  a  silver  five-cent  piece,"  then,  methinks,  there  was  no 
need  for  the  eunuch  to  have  delayed  his  baptism  till  he  could  say, 
"See,  water!"  and  no  need  for  their  both  going  down,  both 
Philip  and  the  eunuch,  either  into,  or  even  to,  the  water,  for  that 
almost  infinitesimally  small  amount  of  liquid.  If  the  water  they 
had  with  them  was  not  deemed  so  pure,  and  fit  for  baptizing- 
purposes,  as  the  water  of  the  wilderness,  even  thus  there  was  no 
necessity  for  both  to  leave  the  chariot,  and  go  down  aujnvhere, 
since  any  one  of  the  eunuch's  attendants  (of  whom,  if  the  travelling 
in  that  country  was  as  dangerous  then  as  it  has  been  almost  ever 
since,  there  must  have  been  quite  a  compan}'  to  insure  safety) 
could  easily  have  furnished  a  sufficiency  of  this  baptizing-water  to 
serve  the  demands  of  any  baptismal  "  compend,"  especially  if  it 
was  so  slight  as  that  which  om-  friends  practise  nowadays.  We 
suppose,  however,  that,  at  that  early  day,  any  water  which  was  fit 
for  drinking  would  well  serve  for  baptizing.  "  It  would  be," 
saj's  Doddridge,  "  very  unnatural  to  suppose  that  they  went  down 
to  the  water  merel}^  that  Philip  might  take  up  a  little  water  in  his 
hand  to  pour  on  the  eunuch.  A  person  of  his  dignity  had,  no 
doubt,  many  vessels  in  his  baggage  on  such  a  journey,  through  so 
desert  a  country',  —  a  precaution  absolutely  necessary  for  travellers 
in  those  parts,  and  never  omitted  b}"  them."  Carson  says  that 
this  passage,  "amidst  the  most  violent  perversion  it  can  sustain 
on  the  rack,  wiU  still  cr}^  out,  ''Immersion!  immersion!'" 
Whether  it  is  put  on  the  rack  or  not,  it  will  still  utter  the  same 

cry. 

It  has  been  thought  by  some,  that,  as  the  eunuch  had  been  read- 
ing from  our  fiftj'-third  of  Isaiah,  he  ma}'  have  read  the  immedi- 
atel}'  preceding  prophetic  announcement  concerning  the  servant  of 
Jehovah,  —  "So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations,"  —  and  that  thus 
he  ma}'  have  come  to  regard  this  sprinkling  as  somehow  connected 
with  baptism,  or  even  as  identical  with  it.  It  will  be  observed, 
however,  that  water  is  not  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  sprin- 
kling ;  so  that  both  the  action  and  meaning  of  the  word  are  left 
quite  indefinite.  It  is,  moreover,  a  remarkable  fact,  that,  in  all 
the  Mosaic  rites  of  purification,  there  is  no  sprinkling  with  mere 
water.     This  seems  rather  to  be  a  modern,  Pedobaptistic  method 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  199 

of  purifying.  Many  commentators,  as  Rosenmiiller,  Hengstenberg, 
and  others,  refer  even  the  "clean  water"  spoken  of  in  Ezek. 
xxxvi.  25,  with  which  Jehovali  would  "sprinkle"  the  house  of 
Israel,  to  the  purifying  heifer-ashes  water  of  Numb.  xix.  17. 
But,  whatever  this  sprinliling  in  Isaiah  may  refer  to,  it  would 
seem  that  the  connection  between  the  Messiah's  sprinkling  many 
(Gentile)  nations  and  his  own  personal  baptism  at  the  hands  of 
Philip  could  not  have  been  very  obvious  to  his  mind.  If  he  had 
got  any  such  mistaken  idea,  the  evangelist,  without  doubt,  would 
have  corrected  his  eiTor,  and  have  instructed  him  as  to  the  true 
nature  and  mode  of  Christian  baptism. 

It  is  well  known  that  commentators  are  divided  in  their  opinions 
as  to  the  true  meaning  of  the  word  in  Isaiah  which  is  rendered 
"  sprinlde  "  in  our  version.  It  is  used  elsewhere  than  in  this  pas- 
sage nineteen  times  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  always  in  the 
sense  to  sprinkle,  but  always  with  a  regimen  which  makes  it  to 
sprinkle  something  upon  something.  On  account  of  this  difference 
of  regimen,  and  of  a  needed  paraUeKsm  or  antithesis  to  the  aston- 
ishment expressed  in  the  preceding  verse,  most  commentators  (but 
not  Hengstenberg,  Wordsworth,  or  Alexander)  give  it  the  sense  of 
leaping  for  joy,  exulting,  or  starting  with  amazement,  &c.  And 
even  Delitzsch,  the  chief  of  living  Hebraists,  adopts  the  rendering, 
exsilire  faciet;  i.e.,  cause  to  leap  in  amazement,  to  tremble  with 
astonishment,  to  electrify.  The  Syriac  and  Vulgate  versions,  with 
our  own,  render  it  as  meaning  to  "  sprinkle  ; "  but  the  earlier  Greek 
or  Alexandrian  version  of  the  Seventy — the  version  most  prevalent 
in  Eg3'pt  and  the  bordering  kingdom  of  Ethiopia  ;  the  version  from 
which  the  New-Testament  writers  chiefly  quote  ;  from  which  Luke 
in  the  chapter  before  us  quotes  at  least  almost  verbatim ;  and 
from  which,  according  to  the  writer  in  Smith's  "Bible  Dictionary," 
' '  the  Ethiopian  eunuch  was  reading  "  —  is  wholly  silent  as  to  any 
sprinkling,  and  renders  it,  "so  shall  many  nations  be  astonished 
at  him."  According  to  Tischendorf's  eighth  and  last  critical  edi- 
tion of  the  New  Testament,  Luke's  quotation  exactly  accords  with 
the  Alexandrian  manuscript  of  the  Septuagint.  But,  after  all,  the 
meaning  of  this  Hebrew  word  is  not  a  decisive  point  in  this  contro- 
vers}' .  Saj-s  Albert  Barnes,  in  his  notes  on  this  passage  in  Isaiah, 
"It  may  be  remarked,  that,  whichever  of  the  above  senses  is 
assigned,  it  furnishes  no  argument  for  the  practice  of  sprinlding  in 


200  ■  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

baptism.  It  refers  to  the  fact  of  His  purifying  and  cleansing  the 
nations,  and  not  to  the  ordinance  of  Cluistian  baptism.  Nor 
should  it  be  used  as  an  argument  in  reference  to  the  mode  in 
which  that  should  be  administered." 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  201 


CHAPTER    XXIII. 

BAPTISMAL  BURIAL. 

"Know  ye  not  that  all  we  who  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  were 
baptized  into  His  death  ?  We  were  buried,  therefore,  with  Him  by  the 
baptism  into  the  death,  that,  as  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead  by  the 
glory  of  the  Father,  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life." — KoM. 
vi.  3,  4. 

"  Buried  with  Him  in  the  baptism  wherein  ye  were  also  raised  with 
Him."  — Col.  ii.  12, 

ACCORDING-  to  a  Pedobaptist  writer,  this  sentence,  "  buried 
with  Him  in  baptism,"  has  made  "  more  Baptists  than  any 
other  passage  in  the  Bible."  "lvalue,"  saj^s  Carson,  "  the  e"v4- 
dence  of  these  passages  so  highlj^,  that  I  look  on  them  as  perfectly 
decisive.  Thej^  contain  God's  own  explanation  of  His  own  ordi- 
nance. .  .  .  We  have  both  the  meaning  of  the  word  and  the 
inspired  explanation  in  our  favor.  .  .  .  Death,  burial,  and  resur- 
rection are  all  expressly  in  the  emblem.  .  .  .  Twist  and  twist  as 
you  will,  still  there  is  a  burial  in  baptism.  .  .  .  Buried  with  Christ 
by  baptism  must  mean  that  baptism  has  a  resemblance  to  Christ's 
burial.  Were  the  angel  Gabriel  to  hesitate,  I  would  order  him  to 
school."  This  last  utterance  of  Carson,  perhaps  not  wholly  un- 
objectionable, has  disturbed  Dr.  Dale,  we  suppose,  much  more  than 
it  has  the  angel  himself. 

We  hardly  need  to  inform  our  readers,  that  with  a  few  excep- 
tions, scarcely  worthy  of  mention  by  reason  of  their  fewness,  the 
great  body  of  the  most  eminent  Christian  scholars,  theologians, 
and  commentators  of  the  world,  have  seen,  in  the  light  of  Paul's 
statements,  a  burial  in  Christian  baptism^  —  a  burial  derived  from 
the  practice  of  immersion.  Dr.  S chaff,  the  editor  of  Lange's 
"Bible- Work,"  concedes  that  "  all  commentators  of  note  (except 


202  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

Stuart  and  Hodge)  expressly  admit,  or  take  it  for  gi'anted,  that  in 
this  verse  .  .  .  the  ancient  prevaihng  mode  of  baptism  by  immer- 
sion and  emersion  is  implied  as  giving  additional  force  to  the  idea 
of  the  going-down  of  the  old  and  the  rising-up  of  the  new  man." 
We  need  instance,  in  this  connection,  but  the  names  of  Riickert, 
Fritzsche,  Tholuck,  De  Wette,  Meyer,  Ebrard,  Lange,  Kahnis, 
Dollinger,  Pressense,  Alford  (cautiously),  Conybeare  and  Howson, 
Ellicott,  and  J.  B.  Lightfoot.  For  other  references,  see  Booth's 
"  Pedobaptism  Examined. "  A  large  part  of  Professor  Conant's 
citations  from  the  fathers  has  reference  to  baptism  as  a  symbol 
of  the  Saviour's  burial,  or  of  the  believer's  burial  with  Him. 
No  intelligent  and  candid  person  will  now  dispute,  that  with  these 
fathers  a  proper  baptism  was  always  an  immersion,  or  at  least 
was  never  performed  without  immersion,  and  involved  the  two- 
fold idea  of  katadusis  and  anadusis  (submersion  and  emersion). 
"  In  what  manner,"  asks  Professor  Stuart,  "  did  the  churches  of. 
Christ  from  a  very  earl}^  period,  to  say  the  least,  understand  the 
word  baptizo  in  the  New  Testament  ?  Plainly  they  construed  it  as 
meaning  unmersion."  From  whence  did  they  derive  this  practice? 
President  Beecher  teUs  us,  in  part  from  "  a  false  interpretation  of 
Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  and  Col.  ii.  12."  "Our  Baptist  brethren,"  he 
rightly  says,  "  regard  these  passages  as  an  inspired  exposition 
of  the  mode  of  baptism  ;  as  proving  irresistibly  that  the  rite  is 
designed,  not  merely  to  represent  purification  from  sin,  but  purifica- 
tion in  a  way  significant  of  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of 
Christ,  and  of  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  the  believer 
with  Him.  .  .  .  Nor  are  they  without  authority  for  interpreting 
these  texts  as  referring  to  the  mode  of  the  external  rite.  Indeed, 
the  opinions  of  the  fathers,  whatever  they  may  be  worth,  are 
entirely  with  them."  Let  us  listen  now  to  some  of  these  fathers 
on  this  subject  of  baptismal  burial.  "  We  celebrate  in  baptism 
the  symbol  and  sign  of  His  death  and  resurrection."  "  We  repre- 
sent our  Lord's  sufferings  and  resurrection  bj^  baptism  in  a  font  " 
(or  pool,  kolumbethra,  swimming-place  ;  in  Latin,  piscina,  or  fish- 
pool)  .  —  Justin  Martyr,  born  about  A.D.  90.  "  For  b}'  an  image 
we  die  in  baptism ;  but  we  truly  rise  in  the  flesh,  as  also  did 
Christ."  "  The  pascha  (passover)  ofiers  a  more  solemn  season 
for  baptism ;  for  then  was  fulfilled  the  passion  of  the  Lord  into 
which  we  are  baptized."  —  TertuUian,   born  about  A.D.    160. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  203 

Dr.  Sears  remarks  "  that  the  great  body  of  the  ancient  church 
reserved,  except  in  cases  of  peril,  all  the  baptisms  of  the  year 
until  the  festival  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  .  .  . 
This  sentiment  prevailed  to  such  an  extreme,  that  Gregory  Nazian- 
zen,  Basil,  and  Clnysostom  were  obliged,  as  wise  men,  to  labor  to 
show  that  any  other  time,  though  less  interesting,  was  nevertheless 
perfectl}^  proper  for  baptism.  .  .  .  Now,  the  whole  ground  of  this 
universal  practice  was,  that  Paul,  in  their  view,  declared  baptism 
to  be  an  emblem  of  death  and  resurrection."  It  will  be  recollected 
that  the  baptism  of  the  "  about  three  thousand  "  by  Chrysostom's 
presbyters  at  Constantinople  occurred  on  the  night  preceding  the 
Easter  or  "  gi-eat  Sabbath." 

' '  You  were  led  to  a  bath  as  Christ  was  conveyed  to  the  sepul- 
chre ;  and  were  thrice  baptized,  to  signify  Christ's  three-da3's' 
burial."  —  Clement  of  Alexandria,  born  about  A. D.  150.  "We 
are,  therefore,  through  this  bathing  (loutron),  buried  with  Christ 
in  regeneration."  —  Origen,  born  A. D.  184.  "As  the  Lord's  body, 
buried  in  the  earrth,  begat  salvation  for  the  world,  so  also  om: 
body,  buried  in  the  baptism,  begat  righteousness  for  us.  The 
likeness  is  this :  As  Christ  died,  and  on  the  third  day  arose,  so 
also  we,  djdng  in  the  baptism,  arise.  For  that  the  child  sinks 
down  thrice  in  the  font  and  comes  up,  this  shows  the  death  and  the 
resurrection,  on  the  third  day,  of  Christ." — Athanasius,  born 
about  A.D.  296.  (See  Dale's  "Christie  Baptism,"  p.  589,  and 
C.  188.)  "  After  these  things  ye  were  led  by  the  hand  to  the 
sacred  font  of  the  divine  baptism,  as  Christ  from  the  cross  to  the 
prepared  tomb.  .  .  .  And  ye  professed  the  saving  profession,  and 
sank  down  thrice  in  the  water,  and  again  came  up  ;  and  there,  by 
a  symbol,  you  shadbwed  forth  the  three-days'  burial  of  Christ.  .  .  . 
And  in  the  same  je  died  and  were  born,  and  that  saving  water 
became  to  3'ou  a  grave  and  a  mother."  —  C3Til,  bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem, born  about  A.D.  315  (C.  178,  179).  "  And  what  is  more 
akin  to  it  (baptism)  than  Easter  Da^^  ?  For  the  day  is  a  memorial 
of  the  resurrection,  and  baptism  is  a  power  in  respect  to  the  resur- 
rection (or  is  a  ground  of  our  resurrection  ") .  "Then  we  come  to 
baptism  in  water,  which  is  a  likeness  of  the  cross,  of  death,  bmial, 
and  resurrection  from  the  dead."  "  Wherefore  the  Lord,  who 
dispenseth  life  to  us,  gave  us  the  covenant  of  baptism,  containing 
an  image  of  death  and  life  ;  the  water  fulfilling  the  image  of  death, 


204:  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

and  the  Spirit  giving  the  earnest  of  life,"  "  Therefore,  in  three 
submersions,  kataduseis,  and  as  many  invocations,  the  great  m.ys~ 
•terj'  of  baptism  is  completed,  that  the  emblem  of  death  may  be 
imaged  forth."  —  Basil  the  Great,  born  about  A.  D.  316.  (See 
Professor  Chase's  article  on  "  Basil  an  Important  Witness  respect- 
ing Baptism  in  the  Fourth  Century,"  in  "  Christian  Review,"  Octo- 
ber, 1858.)  "  Coming  to  the  water,  we  conceal  ourselves  in  it  as  the 
Saviour  concealed  Himself  in  the  earth  ;  and  this  we  do  three  times, 
to  represent  the  grace  of  His  resurrection  performed  after  three 
daj's."  "The  old  man  is  buried  in  water :  the  new  man  is  born 
again,  and  grows  in  grace."  — Gregor}^  of  Nyssa,  brother  of  Basil. 
"  Christ  is  baptized  :  let  us  descend  also  with  Him,  that  with  Him 
we  may  likewise  ascend.  John  baptizeth,  and  Christ  approacheth, 
sanctif3-ing  him  also  who  baptizeth,  but  chiefly  to  burj'  the  old 
Adam  in  the  waters,  and,  above  all,  that  thereby  the  waters  of  Jor- 
dan might  be  sanctified,"  &c.  "  Let  us,  therefore,  be  buried  with 
Christ  b}^  the  baptism,  that  we  may  also  rise  with  Him  ;  let  us  go 
down  with  Him,  that  we  may  also  be  exalted  with  Him ;  let  us 
come  up  with  Him,  that  we  may  also  be  glorified  with  Him." —  Greg- 
ory Nazianzen,  born  about  A.D.  320  (C.  189).  "  Naaman  the 
Sj'rian  dipped  seven  times  under  the  law  ;  but  thou  wert  baptized 
in  the  name  of  the  Trinit}'.  .  .  .  Hold  fast  the  order  of  things 
in  this  faith.  Thou  didst  die  to  sin,  and  didst  rise  again  to  God  ; 
and  as  though  co-interred  with  Him  in  that  element  of  the  world, 
having  died  to  sin,  thou  wert  raised  again  to  Hfe  eternal."  "  For, 
when  thou  sinkest  down,  thou  dost  take  on  a  similitude  of  death  and 
burial."  "  Thou  saidst,  I  believe,  and  thou  didst  sink  down  ;  that 
is,  wast  buried."  "  So,  then,  also  in  baptism,  since  there  is  a 
simihtude  of  death,  without  doubt,  whilst  thou  dost  sink  down  and 
rise  again,  there  is  a  similitude  of  the  resurrection."  — Ambrose, 
born  about  A.D.  340  (C.  210-214).  "  For  to  be  baptized  and  to 
sink  down,  then  to  emerge,  is  a  s^Tnbol  of  the  descent  into  the 
under- world,  and  of  the  ascent  from  thence.  Therefore  Paul  calls 
the  baptism  the  burial."  "  Our  first  man  was  buried  ;  buried  not 
in  earth,  but  in  water ;  dissolved  not  by  death,  but  b}'  Him  who 
dissolved  death,  and  buried  him  not  by  the  law  of  nature,  but  bj' 
the  command  of  Authority'  mightier  than  nature.  .  .  .  Nothing  is 
more  blessed  than  this  burial,  whereat  all  rejoice,  both  angels  and 
men,  and  the  Lord  of  angels.     For  this  burial  there  needeth  not 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  205 

garments,  cofflu,  or  the  like.  Would  3'ou  see  a  sign  thereof?  I 
will  show  3'ou  a  pool  wherein  one  was  buried,  another  rose.  The 
Egyptians  were  drowned  in  the  Red  Sea,  and  the  Israelites  arose 
out  of  it.  And  the  same  thing  whifh  buries  the  one  produceth  the 
other.  Marvel  not  that  there  is  both  birth  and  destruction  in  bap- 
tism."—Chrysostom,  born  about  A.D.  347  (C.  184-186).  "In  this 
font  before  we  dipped  your  whole  body  {antequam  vos  toto  corpore 
tingueremus) ,  we  asked  you,  'Believest  thou  in  God,  the  Omnipo- 
tent Father?'  .  .  .  After  3'ou  averred  that  j^ou  believed,  we  im- 
mersed (demersimus)  three  times  j'our  heads  in  the  sacred  font. 
For  you  are  rightly  immersed  {mersi  estis)  three  times  who  re- 
ceive baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity.  You  are  rightl}^  im- 
mersed three  times,  3"ou  who  receive  baptism  in  the  name  (m 
nomine)  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  rose  the  third  da}^  from  the  dead. 
Trine  immersion  is  the  symbol  of  the  burial  of  the  Lord,  by  which 
you  are  buried  with  Christ  in  baptism,  and  with  Christ  rise  again 
b}'  faith."  —  Augustine,  born  A.D.  354.  "  Baptism  is  a  type  of 
our  Lord's  death."  "  In  hoi}' baptism  we  receive  the  tj-pe  of  the 
resurrection."  "He  that  is  baptized  is  buried  with  the  Lord,  that, 
taking  part  with  Him  in  death,  he  may  also  be  a  partaker  of  His 
resurrection.  But  if  the  body  is  dead,  and  does  not  rise,  why  is  it 
then  baptized?"— Theodoret,  born  about  A.D.  386.  "This 
baptism,  therefore,  is  given  into  the  death  of  Jesus  :  the  water  is 
instead  of  the  burial  (or  grave)  ;  the  descent  into  the  water,  the 
dying  together  with  Christ ;  the  ascent  out  of  the  water,  the  ris- 
ing again  with  I-Iim."  —  "Apostolical  Constitutions,"  bk.  \i.  chap. 
xvii.,  fourth  or  fifth  centmy  after  Christ.  "The  entire  concealment 
in  water  fitl}-  represents  Christ's  death  and  burial." — Dionysius 
Areopag.  "  Trine  immersion  represents  the  three-da^'s'  burial  of 
Christ." — Leo  the  Great,  born  about  A.D.  390.  Man}^  other 
quotations  from  the  fathers  may  be  found  in  Dr.  Sears'  "  Review 
of  Burgess  on  Baptism,"  Conant's  "Baptizein,"  Dale's  "Patris- 
tic Baptism,"  and  Dr.  Pusey's  "  Scriptural  Views  of  Holy  Bap- 
tism "  (No.  67,  "  Tracts  for  the  Times  "). 

As  we  began  with  the  time  of  Justin  Mart3T  of  the  first  centmy, 
so  we  might  come  down  through  the  ages,  almost  to  the  present 
hour,  arrajing  an  ' '  unbroken  phalanx  ' '  of  witnesses  to  the  as- 
sured belief  that  Paul  saw  in  Christian  baptism  an  immersion- 
burial  in  water  which  was  symbolical  of  Christ's  death  and  burial, 


206  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

and  of  the  believer's  death  and  burial  with  Christ.  We  will,  how- 
ever, adduce  only  one  more  testimony,  —  that  of  Dr.  William  AVaU, 
the  renowned  author  of  the  "  Histor^^  of  Infant-Baptism,"  and 
the  ablest  defender  of  that  pmetice,  though  himself  properly  an 
immersionist  in  belief,  as  witness  (in  addition  to  his  testimony 
heretofore  given)  the  following  words :  ' '  This  ' '  (immersion  in 
the  early  churches)  "is  so  plain  and  clear  hj  an  infinite  number 
of  passages,  that  as  one  cannot  but  pity  the  weak  endeavors  of 
such  Pedobaptists  as  would  maintain  the  negative  of  it,  so  also  we 
ought  to  disown  and,  show  a  dislike  of  the  profane  scoffs  which 
some  people  give  to  the  English  anti-Pedobaptists  merely  for  their 
use  of  dipping.  It  is  one  thing  that  that  circumstance  is  not  ab- 
solutely necessary  to  the  essence  of  baptism,  and  another  to  go 
about  to  represent  it  as  ridiculous  and  foolish,  or  as  shameful  and 
indecent ;  when  it  was,  in  all  probability,  the  way  by  which  our 
blessed  Sa^aom',  and  for  certain  was  the  most  usual  and  ordinar}?- 
way  by  which  the  ancient  Christians,  did  receive  their  baptism.  .  .  . 
It  is  a  great  want  of  prudence,  as  well  as  of  honesty,  to  refuse  to 
grant  to  an  adversary  what  is  certaiul}"  true,  and  may  be  proved 
so"  (Part  II.  chap.  ix.  vol.  ii.  p.  297,  fourth  London  edition). 
In  his  defence  of  the  "History  of  Infant -Baptism"  (vol.  iii. 
p.  123)  he  says,  "  I  have  always  held  and  taught,  that,  where  bap- 
tism may  with  safety  be  administered  in  that  way  of  dipping  which 
St.  John  (the  Baptist)  and  the  apostles  in  those  hot  countries 
used,  that  waj*  ought  to  be  preferred ;  in  cases  of  haste,  want  of  a 
quantity  of  water,  or  danger  to  health,  pouring  of  water  to  be 
sufficient,  and  indeed,  in  the  case  of  the  danger  of  health,  the  best 
way ;  for  God  will  have  mere}',  and  not  sacrifice.  As  for  sprin- 
Ming,  I  say,  as  Mr.  Blake  did  at  its  first  coming  up  in  England, 
'  Let  them  defend  it  that  use  it.'  "  ^    And,  in  urging  his  "  brethren 

1  Dr.  Wall  uses  the  following  dissuasives  from  sprinkling  in  favor  of 
immersion,  or,  at  least,  of  pouring:  "To  those  who  use  sprinkling  instead 
of  dipping,  or  even  pouring  water  (which  last  is  enjoined  by  our  church 
even  in  the  weakest  child's  case),  I  would  humbly  represent  the  considera- 
tion of  the  duty  of  obedience  which  they  not  only  owe  to  the  rules  of  the 
church  to  which  they  have  promised  to  conform,  but  also  and  chiefly  to  our 
Saviour  Himself,  whose  word  of  command  is.  Baptize.  I  wish  they  would 
study  the  notion  and  emphasis  of  that  word."  After  remarking  that  the 
word  includes  both  dipping  and  washing  in  its  signification,  he  adds,  "  They 
will  do  well  to  consider  whether  they  shall  be  able  to  justify  before  our 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  207 

of  the  clergy  "  to  the  practice  of  immersion,  he  says,  a  few  pages 
farther  on,  "  Our  climate  is  no  colder  than  it  was  for  those  thirteen 
or  fourteen  hundred  jesirs  from  the  beginning  of  Christianity'  here 
to  Queen  Elizabeth's  time,  and  not  near  so  cold  as  Muscov}^  and 
some  other  countries  where  they  do  still  dip  their  children  in  bap- 
tism, and  find  no  inconvenience  in  it ;  "  that  the  mode  (dipping) 
"  which  all  our  fathers  in  this  island  practised  till  a  few  years  ago, 
without  damage  to  their  children's  health,  cannot  be  impracticable 
now  ;  "  and  that,  if  the  coldness  of  the  air  or  water  is  feared,  this 
difficulty  may  be  obviated  by  proper  dressing,  and  by  heating  the 
water  till  it  should  be  as  warm  "  as  the  waters  in  which  our  Sav- 
iour and  the  primitive  Christians  in  those  hot  countries  which  the 
Scripture  mentions  were  baptized."  And  he  sees  but  two  serious 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  returning  to  Scripture  and  ancient  prac- 
tice. One  is  an  inclination,  on  the  part  of  the  people  who  are 
"  Presbyterianly  inchned,"  to  imitate  Calvin  and  the  Church  of 
Geneva;  and  the  other  is  the  "struggle"  with  the  midwives, 
nurses,  and  mothers,  who  "  value  themselves  and  their  skiU  much 
upon  the  neat  dressing  of  the  child  on  the  christening-day,  —  the 
setting  all  the  trimming,  the  pins,  and  the  laces  in  their  right 
order;  and  if  the  child  be  brought  in  loose  clothes,  which  maj' 
presently  be  taken  off  for  the  baptism  and  put  on  again,  tliis  pride 
is  lost,  and  this  makes  a  reason"  ("Defence,"  &c.,  vol.  iii. 
p.  129) .  In  reference  to  the  practice  in  the  time  of  the  Sa\'iour  and 
the  apostles,  and  to  the  passages  in  Paul  which  speak  of  a  baptis- 
mal burial,  he  thus  remarks  :  "  As  to  the  manner  of  baptism  then 
generally  used,  the  texts  produced  ...  by  ever}^  one  that  speaks 
of  these  matters  (John  iii.  23  ;  Mark  i.  5  ;  Acts  ^iii.  38)  are  un- 
deniable proofs  that  the  baptized  person  went  ordinaril}'  into  the 
water,  and  sometimes  the  baptist  too.  "We  should  not  know  b}- 
these  accounts  whether  the  whole  body  of  the  baptized  was  put 
under  water,  head  and  all,  were  it  not  for  two  later  proofs,  which 

Saviour  that  a  droji  or  a  sprinkle  or  two  of  water  can  be  so  faii-ly  under- 
stood as  to  be  a  ivashing  of  tlie  i^erson  in  this  sense  as  ponring  water  is  .  .  . 
Suppose  that  such  a  washing  by  sprinlchng  or  a  drop  be  sufficient  in  case 
of  some  necessity  that  may  happen  (as  I  liope  it  is) :  shall  we  thereupon,  in 
ordinary  cases,  go  as  near  to  the  breaking  of  Christ's  command  as  possibly 
we  can  ?  '  Do  we  provoke  the  Lord  to  jealousy?  Are  loe  stronger  than 
He?'"  — Defence,  &c.,  p.  352. 


208  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

seem  to  me  to  put  it  out  of  question,  —  one,  that  St.  Paul  does 
twice,  in  an  allusive  v^ay  of  speaking,  call  baptism  a  burial  ;  .  .  . 
the  other,  the  custom  of  the  Christians  in  the  near  succeeding 
times,  which,  being  more  largely  and  particularly  dehvered  in  books, 
is  known  to  have  been  generally  or  ordinarily  a  total  imiviersion," 
&c.  ("Defence  of  the  History  of  Infant-Baptism,"  chap.  v.  vol. 
iii.  p.  115,  fourth  edition.) 

Dr.  Dale  acknowledges,  of  course,  that  the  patrists  deduced 
from  the  passages  in  Romans  and  Colossians  ' '  the  idea  of  a  sym- 
bol burial,"  and  that  they  regarded  the  "  momentary  covering  in 
water  to  be  a  sj'mbol  of  the  covering  of  Christ's  body  in  the 
sepulchi'e."  Still,  while  he  accepts  the  fact  of  a  "  momentaiy 
covering"  in  the  ex-ordine,  regular  baptism  of  the  fathers,  he  yet 
denies  that  "  such  covering  is  Christian  baptism,  or  that  there  was 
a  baptism  in  such  covering,"  but  maintains  that  "  the  water  so 
used  was  employed  as  an  agency  to  eflfect  a  baptism  which  was 
spiritual,  and  not  physical."  In  other  words.  Dr.  Dale,  you  mean 
that  the  fathers  made  much,  very  much,  of  the  baptismal  rite,  call- 
ing it  and  esteeming  it  regeneration,  illumination,  the  water  of 
life,  a  healing  medicine,  the  antitjq^e  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ, 
the  tunic  of  gladness,  a  robe  of  light,  the  garment  of  immortality, 
the  seal  of  salvation,  the  key  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  a  chariot 
to  heaven,  &c. ;  while  they  regarded  the  baptismal  act  to  consist  in 
a  Jcatadusis,  a  submersion,  a  sinking-down  or  burial  in  water,  and 
an  anadusis  or  coming-up  from  the  same,  and  practised  the  triple 
immersion  partly  in  honor  of  the  Trinity  unto  whose  name  they 
were  baptized,  but  especially  in  memoriam  of  Christ's  three-days* 
burial  in  the  tomb. 

As  in  Dr.  Dale's  (virtually  Quaker)  view  there  is,  properly 
speaking,  no  ritual  baptism  in  the  New  Testament,  so  he  wUl  see  in 
Paul's  representation  no  reference  to  immersion  or  to  any  external 
rite.  There  is  no  "  water  "  in  the  text ;  there  is  no  baptism  into 
water  expressed,  but  only  a  baptism  into  Christ,  and  into  His 
death ;  there  is  no  burial  in  water  expressed  or  referred  to,  but 
only  a  burial  with  Christ.  Besides,  how  could  the  receiving  of 
water-baptism,  even  if  not  destructive  of  life,  be  a  proof  that 
those  who  had  submitted  to  that  rite  could  no  longer  live  in  sin  ? 
These  are  Dale's  strong  points  in  this  dispute.  We  grant,  of 
course,  that  water  is  not  mentioned  in  the  text  in  connection  with 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  209 

baptism  ;  nor  do  we  thinli  its  mention  here  anj^  more  needful  than, 
when  speaking  of  breathing,  we  should  mention  the  usual  element  we 
breathe.  We  come,  then,  back  again  to  consider  what  is  the  right 
interpretation  of  the  phrases  "baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,"  and 
"baptized  into  His  death."  Mej'er  (on  Rom.  vi.  3)  says,  '■^Bapti- 
zein  eis  never  means  any  thing  else  than  to  baptize  in  respect  to, 
with  reference  to;  the  context  alone  giving  the  more  special  mean- 
ings. .  .  .  Undoubtedly  the  name  '  Jesus '  was  named  in  baptizing  ; 
but  the  conception  of  becoming  immersed  into  Christ  (Riickert  and 
others  ;  and  again  in  Weiss,  "Bib.  Theol.,"  p.  343)  is  to  be  set  aside, 
and  is  not  to  be  supported  by  the  figurative  expression  in  Gal.  iii. 
27.  The  mj^stic  character  of  our  passage  is  not  produced  by  so 
vague  a  sensuous  conception,  which,  moreover,  has  all  the  pas- 
sages against  it  in  which  baptizein  is  coupled  with  onoma,  name 
(Matt,  xxviii.  19  ;  Acts  ii.  38,  x.  48,  xix.  5  ;  1  Cor.  i.  13),  but  is 
based  simply  on  the  ethical  consciousness  of  that  intimate  apper- 
taining to  Christ  into  which  baptism  translates  its  recipients." 
Confessed!}^  there  can  be  a  ritual  baptism  "with  reference  to" 
Moses,  Paul,  or  Christ ;  and  there  is  no  necessity  for  converting 
these  names  into  a  figurative  "  water-pool  "  or  "  verbal  element." 
Our  baptism  unto  Christ,  as  we  have  explained  the  phrase,  imports 
"  an  intimate  appertaining  "  or  belonging  to  Him  as  His  disciples 
and  followers.  And  our  baptism  unto  His  death  likewise  imports 
a  giving-up  of  ourselves  to  His  death,  a  belonging  to  His  death,  a 
sharing  or  participating  in  His  death ;  in  other  words,  our  d3'ing 
with  Him.  "Into  His  death"  signifies,  says  Alford,  "into  a 
state  of  conformity  with  and  participation  of  His  death."  Thus 
the  apostle  sa5's  that  our  old  man  is  crucified  with  Christ,  the 
body  of  the  flesh  is'  dead,  the  body  of  sin  destroyed ;  and  that 
we  died  to  sin,  and  died  with  Christ.  Hence  the  grand  distinctive- 
initiatory  rite  of  Christianity  imports  our  dying  and  bmial  with 
Christ;  in  other  words,  our  death  to  self  and  sin.  On  the- 
phrase,  "  through  baptism  unto  death,"  Meyer  thus  remarks  :  "  It 
is  not,  however,  speciaU}'  the  death  of  Christ  that  is  again  meant, 
as  if  autou  [His]  were  again  annexed ;  but  the  description  is 
generalized,  agreeably  to  the  context,  in  a  wa}' that  could  not  be 
misunderstood.  Whosoever,  namel}',  as  Paul  has  just  set  forth  in. 
verse  3,  has  been  baptized  unto  the  death  of  Christ,  has,  in  fact^. 
thereby  received  a  baptism  icnto  death;  i.e.,  such  a  baptism,  that, 


210  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

taken  away  by  it  from  his  previous  vital  activity,  he  has  become 
one  belonging  to  death,  one  who  has  fallen  under  its  sway." 

But  the  apostle  sees  not  only  a  burial  with  Christ  in  baptism, 
but  also  a  rising  again  to  "newness  of  life."  The  advance  in 
thought  here  is  in  substance  thus  given  by  Mej^er  (on  Eom. 
vi.  4)  :  "Baptism  unto  Christ's  death  imports  generally  a  fellow- 
ship with  His  death :  the  submersion  (Jcatadusis)  especially  repre- 
sents our  burial  with  Christ ;  and  the  emersion  (anadusis) ,  the 
rising  to  the  new  life  with  Christ."  Matthies  (in  his  "  Baptismatis 
Expositio,"  p.  116)  thus  remarks:  "In  the  apostolic  church,  in 
order  that  fellowship  in  Christ's  death  might  be  signified,  the 
whole  body  of  the  one  to  be  baptized  was  immersed  in  water  or 
a  river ;  and  then,  that  participation  in  Christ's  resurrection  might 
be  indicated,  the  body  again  emerged,  or  was  taken  out  of  the 
water.  It  is  indeed  to  be  lamented  (dolendum  est)  that  this  rite, 
as  being  one  which  most  aptl}^  sets  before  the  eyes  the  symboUc 
significance  of  baptism,  has  been  changed"  ("Baptizein,"  p.  161). 
The  same  author,  speaking  (on  p.  362)  of  "  sacra  immersio," 
further  ssljs,  ^'-  Immergitur  autem  homo  quo  indicetur  eum  per 
Christum  debere  exuere  veterem  hominem  .  .  .  mundo  peccato- 
que  renuntiare,  itaque  cum  Christo  mori ;  itemque  emergitur  idem, 
quo  significetur  eum  in  Christo  debere  induCre  novum  hominem 
.  .  .  itaque  cum  Christo  resurgere."  J.  B.  Lightfoot  (on  Col.  ii. 
11)  says,  "  Baptism  is  the  grave  of  the  old  man,  and  the  birth  of 
the  new.  As  he  sinks  beneath  the  baptismal  waters,  the  behever 
buries  there  all  his  corrupt  affections  and  past  sins  ;  as  he  emerges 
thence,  he  rises  regenerate,  quickened  to  new  hopes  and  a  new  life. 
.  .  .  Thus  baptism  is  an  image  of  his  participation  both  in  the 
death  and  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ."  For  similar  testimony 
from  different  writers,  see  the  "Views  of  Scholars  of  Different 
Communions"  in  Conant's  "Baptizein,"  pp.  150-157;  also  pp. 
148,  160,  &c. 

Some  commentators,  we  observe,  would  make  Paul  say,  "We 
were  buried  with  Christ  into  His  death  by  the  baptism."  But  De 
Wette  and  Meyer  more  properly  connect  death  with  the  baptism, 
in  accordance  with  the  apostle's  assertion  that  "  we  were  baptized 
into  His  death."  St.  Paul,  in  his  Letter  to  the  Colossians,  also, 
speaks  of  a  burial  and  a  resurrection  with  Christ  as  figured  in 
baptism:  "Being  buried  with  Him  in  the  baptism,  wherein  ye 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  211 

were  also  raised  with  Him."  Meyer  and  Eadie  make  the  word 
rendered  wherein  to  mean  in  or  by  whom,  referring  to  Christ ;  but 
De  Wette,  Ellieott,  Alford,  and  J.  B.  Lightfoot,  prefer  the  usual 
rendering,  and  make  baptism,  in  Colossians  (Lightfoot  prefers  here 
baptismb  to  bapHsmati)  as  in  Romans,  to  symbolize  both  a  burial 
and  a  resurrection. 

In  Peter's  assertion  (omitting  the  parenthesis)  that  "  baptisiji 
now  saves  us  also  .  .  .  through  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ," 
there  is,  as  many  suppose,  an  implied  reference  to  the  idea  of 
burial  and  of  resurrection  which  belongs  to  baptism.  "  Illam 
sententiam,"  says  Matthies  ("  Baptismatis  Expositio,"  p.  153), 
"  (^uam  Paulus  de  sj^mbolica  baptismi  significatione  habet  (Rom. 
vi.  3-6)  etiam  hie  Petri  locus  respicit ;  etenim  quum  sacra  immer- 
sio,  baptizatos  homines,  quia  Christus  e  mortuis  sit  resuscitans, 
resurrectionis  esse  particeps  declaret,  eo  ipso  Christianae  religionis 
sectatores  salvos  prsestat  .  .  .  per  resurrectionem  Christi ;  i.e.,  per 
communionem  ejusdem  resurrectionis."  De  Wette  on  this  pas- 
sage thus  remarks  :  "  As  we  in  the  baptism  with  Christ  die  to  the 
flesh  and  to  sin,  so  we  rise  with  Him,  the  risen  one,  to  a  new 
life."  And  Alford  sa^^s,  "This  saving  power  of  the  water  (of 
baptism)  is  by  virtue  of  the  resurrection  and  exaltation  of  Christ, 
into  whose  death  and  resurrection  we  are  baptized."  Hence,  also, 
the  apostle  Paul,  having  spoken  a  few  verses  previously'  of  a  sacra- 
mental bm'ial  and  resurrection  with  Christ  in  baptism,  saj's  (in 
Col.  iii.  1) ,  "  J/ye,  then,  be  risen  with  Christ,"  &c.  We  scarcely 
need  to  remind  our  readers  how  foreign  is  all  this  language  respect- 
ing our  dying,  burial,  and  rising  with  Christ,  in  this  sacred  ordi- 
nance, to  the  idea  of  "  infant  and  indiscriminate  baptism." 

The  question  now  remains,  "  How  much  of  the  apostle's  repre- 
sentation is  to  be  regarded  as  external  and  literal,  and  how  much 
internal  and  spiritual?  We  regard  the  baptism  unto  Christ  and 
His  death  as  involving  a  ritual  baptism ;  that  is,  a  literal  immer- 
sion. Paul,  the  writer,  was  certainly  ritually  baptized,  as  also 
were  those  Christians  whom  he  addressed.  "  Know  ye  not,"  says 
the  apostle,  "that  all  we  who  were  baptized,"  &c.  The  aorist 
tense  of  the  verb  baptizo  refers  to  some  definite,  and,  as  it  were, 
momentary  act  in  the  past,  —  the  act  of  outward  visible  baptism, 
which,  being  an  initiatory,  solemn,  public  act,  an  open  pi'ofession 
of  faith,  and  putting  on  of  Christ,  could  indeed  be   ^'- known  of 


212  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

ail  men"  much  better  than  an}- inward  state,  than  any  spiritual 
regeneration  or  spiritual  baptism.  If  the  baptism  "  into  Christ  " 
(which  differs  not  materially  from  baptism  ' '  into  the  name  of 
Christ")  is  outward  and  visible,  so  also  is  the  baptism  into  or 
unto  His  death,  as  these  are  but  different  parts  of  the  same  bap- 
tism. Bishop  Merrill  of  the  Methodist-Episcopal  Church,  while 
maintaining  that  the  burial  is  spiritual,  yet  acknowledges  that  the 
baptism  refers  to  the  "outward  rite."  He  says,  "  The  question 
will  arise  as  to  what  baptism  is  intended, — whether  the  outward 
rite,  or  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit :  but  I  cheerfully  accept  the  state- 
ment that  the  word  is  to  be  taken  in  its  most  obvious  sense  ;  that  it 
means  the  ordinance  established  in  the  church,  to  be  administered 
by  the  use  of  water,  wherever  the  gospel  is  preached."  If,  how- 
ever, the  baptism  unto  Christ  and  His  death  is  outward  and  Uteral, 
then  the  burial  effected  by  that  baptism  is  also  outward  and 
literal :  while  at  the  same  time  it  presupposes  that  which  is 
internal  and  spiritual;  since  "real  Christian  baptism,"  in  the 
words  of  Professor  S.  H.  Turner,  "is  both  internal  and  out- 
ward." We  deem  it  to  be'  well-nigh  a  matter  of  certainty  that 
this  figure  of  a  "burial"  is  founded  on  the  fact  of  a  Kteral 
physical  baptism  or  immersion.  In  Col.  ii.  11  Paul  speaks  of  a 
circumcision  which  was  spiritual,  "not  made  with  hands;"  but 
he  does  not  here  speak  in  this  way  of  Christian  baptism.  The 
idea,  then,  of  the  whole  representation,  is,  that  as  Christ,  having 
died  for  sin,  was  buried,  covered  over,  and  concealed  in  the 
sepulchre,  so  we,  being  dead  to  sin,  were  likewise  buried,  — buried 
even  with  Christ :  not,  however,  in  His  rock  sepulchre,  but  by 
baptism  ;  i.e.,  immersion,  or  entire  concealment  in  water.  Neither 
burial  nor  baptism  is  ' '  self-ending  : ' '  yet  Christ  was  raised  from 
the  dead ;  and  so  we,  as  being  alive  with  Christ,  are  in  this  rite 
raised  from  our  "  baptismal  grave,"  henceforth  to  "  walk  in  new- 
ness of  life."  The  fact,  and  not  the  mode,  of  the  two  burials  and 
the  two  resurrections,  is  the  thing  which  is  chiefly  brought  to  view. 
"We  are  buried  with  Christ  in  and  by  baptism :  a  burial,  however, 
which  is  not  of  unending  continuance  ;  for  in  this  baptism  we  are 
also  raised  with  Him.  The  death,  biurial,  and  resurrection  of 
Christ  were  certainly  literal  or  physical.  But  Paul  says,  "Like 
AS  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead,  so  we,"  &c.  "For  if  we 
have  been  planted"   (or  "ingrafted,"  "grown  together,"  "re- 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  213 

lated,"  "united")  "in  the  likeness  of  His  death,  we  shall  be 
also  (in  the  lilieness)  of  His  resurrection."  Our  burial  and  rising 
with  Christ  in  baptism,  if  like  Christ's  burial  and  rising,  should 
possess  a  physical  character.  But  as  the  burial  and  resurrection  of 
Christ  may  possess  both  a  ph^'sical  and  spiritual  character,  so 
ours,  by  virtue  of  the  "likeness"  spoken  of,  may  have  both  a 
physical  and  spiritual  character. 

In  a  physical  aspect,  certainh',  the  immersion  in  water  of  the 
behever  in  Christ  bears  a  "likeness"  to  Christ's  burial  in  the 
tomb.  "  So  thou  also,"  sa^'s  Cj'ril,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  "  going 
down  into  the  water,  and  in  a  manner  buried  in  the  waters  as  He 
in  the  rock,  art  raised  again,"  &c.  "Not  truly  did  we  die,  nor 
were  we  truly  buried,  nor  trulj^  crucified  with  Clixist  did  we  rise 
again;  but  the  imitation  was  in  similitude,"  &c.  (C.  176,  177). 
"  Imitating  the  burial  of  Christ  by  the  baptism  ;  for  the  bodies  of 
those  baptized  are,  as  it  wei"e,  buried  in  the  water.  .  .  .  The 
water  presents  the  image  of  death  receiving  the  body  as  in  a 
tomb."  —  Basil  the  Great  (C.  181-183).  Augustine,  after  sapng 
that  "sacraments  would  not  be  sacraments  if  they  had  not  a 
resemblance  of  those  things  whereof  they  are  sacraments,  and 
from  this  resemblance  they  commonly  have  the  names  of  the 
things  themselves,"  thus  remarks  :  "  So  the  apostle,  on  this  same 
subject  of  baptism,  sa^-s,  '  We  are  buried  together  with  Christ  by 
bajitism  unto  death.'  He  does  not  say  we  signify  a  burial ;  but  he 
uses  the  word  itself,  — tve  are  buried."  "  For  as  His  body  buried 
in  the  earth  bore  for  fruit  the  salvation  of  the  world  ;  so  ours 
also,  buried  in  baptism,  bore  fruit,  .  .  .  unnumbered  blessings, 
and,  last  of  all,  shall  bear  that  of  the  resurrection.  Since,  there- 
fore, we  indeed  in  water,  but  He  in  the  earth,  and  we  in  respect 
to  sin,  but  He  in  respect  to  the  bod3',  was  buried,  on  this  ac- 
count He  did  not  sa}',  'planted  together  in  death,'  but  'in  the 
likeness  of  death.'  "  —  Chrysostom  (C.  186) .  "Thou  didst  imitate, 
in  the  sinking  down,  the  burial  of  the  Master  ;  but  thou  didst  rise 
again  from  thence,"  &c.  — Athanasius  (C.  187) .  Thomas  Aquinas 
thus  speaks  to  us  from  the  middle  ages,  —  an  echo,  though  a  faint 
one,  of  the  creed  and  practice  of  the  fathers  :  "In  immersione 
expressius  repraesentatur  figura  sepulturse  Christi,  et  ideo  hie 
modus  baptizandi  est  communior  et  laudabihor."  We  make  here 
but  one  more  quotation,  and  this  time  from  one  of  our  old  Eug- 


214  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

lish  divines,  —  Rev.  Gabriel  Towerson,  D.D. :  "For  thongli  that 
might  (be),  and  was  well  enough  represented  by  the  baptized 
person's  being  buried  in  baptism,  and  then  rising  out  of  it,  yet 
can  it  not  be  said  to  be  so,  or,  at  least,  but  very  imperfectly,  by 
the  pouring  out  or  sprinkling  the  baptismal  water  on  him.  But, 
therefore,  as  there  is  so  much  the  more  reason  to  represent  the  rite 
of  immersion  as  the  only  legitimate  rite  of  baptism,  because  the 
only  one  that  can  answer  the  ends  of  its  institution  and  those 
things  which  were  to  be  signified  by  it ;  so,  especially  if  (as  is 
well  known,  and  undoubtedl}^  of  great  force)  the  general  practice 
of  the  primitive  church  was  agi-eeable  thereto,  and  the  practice  of 
the  Greek  Church  to  this  day.  For  who  can  think  either  the  one 
or  the  other  would  have  been  so  tenacious  of  so  troublesome  a 
rite  "  (to  be  endured,  however,  but  once  in  a  lifetime),  "  were  it 
not  that  they  were  well  assured,  as  they  of  the  primitive  church 
might  very  well  be,  of  its  being  the  only  instituted  and  legiti- 
aiATE  one?  "  Still,  as  to  the  question,  how  much  of  the  apostle's 
representation  in  this  passage  refers  to  external  rite,  and  exactly 
how  much  is  spiritual  or  moral,  there  may  be,  we  will  allow, 
honest  differences  of  opinion.  Perhaps  the  best  exposition  of 
this  passage,  and  the  one  most  likely  to  command  general  assent, 
would  be,  that  the  external  and  the  spiritual  were,  in  the  apostle's 
mind,  blended  together  in  one.  In  the  words  of  Rev.  John  Owen 
(translator  and  editor  of  Cahdn's  Works,  1849),  Paul  "  speaks  of 
baptism  here  not  merely  as  a  sj-mbol,  but  as  including  what  it 
sjTnbolizes."  "  The  idea  "  (says  Pressense  in  his  "  Early  Years 
of  Christianity  ")  "  never  occurred  to  "Paul  that  baptism  might  be 
divorced  from  faith,  the  sign  from  the  thing  signified ;  and  he 
does  not  hesitate,  in  the  bold  simplicity  of  his  language,  to  identify 
the  spiritual  fact  of  conversion  with  the  act  which  s^Tnbolizes  it. 
'  We  are  buiied  with  Christ  b}'-  baptism  into  death,'  he  saj's. 
With  such  words  before  us,  we  are  compelled  either  to  ascribe  to 
him,  in  spite  of  all  else  he  has  written,  the  materialistic  notion  of 
baptismal  regeneration,  or  to  admit  that  with  him  faith  is  so  inti- 
mately associated  with  baptism,  that,  in  speaking  of  the  latter,  he 
includes  the  former,  without  which  it  would  be  a  vain  form.  The 
writers  of  the  New  Testament  all  ascribe  the  same  significance 
to  baptism.  It  presupposes  with  them  invariably  a  manifestation 
of  the  religious  life,  which  may  differ  in  degree,  but  which  is  in 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  215 

every  case  demanded."  "We  are  willing  here,  however,  to  con- 
cede, for  argument's  sake,  that  the  bm-ial  is  not  in  water,  but  is 
wholly  a  "moral"  or  "spiritual"  bur3ang.  We  will  go  still 
farther,  and  allow  that  the  baptism  is  not  into  water  ;  that  it  has 
here  nothing  to  do  with  water,  or  with  any  external  rite,  but  is 
a  spiritual  baptism  "into  the  sin-remitting  death  of  Christ." 
Even  thus  we  maintain,  in  the  words  of  Professor  Fee,  that  "  the 
spiritual  must  derive  its  imagery  from  the  material,  the  figura- 
tive from  the  literal,"  and,  of  course,  that  this  imagery  is  drawn 
from  the  act  of  baptism  or  immersion,  and  not  from  the  act  of 
sprinkling.  And  this  we  affirm,  notwithstanding  Dale's  ipse  dixit, 
that  there  is  no  the  action  belonging  to  baptizo,  and  that  baptizo 
does  not  take  out  what  it  puts  in.  If  sprinkling  were  the  "  mode  " 
of  baptism,  and  it  were  affirmed  that  Christians  are  "  sprinkled 
into  Christ's  death,"  even  then,  methinks,  we  never  should  have 
heard  from  an  apostle  any  such  incongruous  phraseology^  as 
' '  buried  with  Christ  in  the  sprinkling  wherein  ye  were  also  raised 
with  Him,"  &c.  "  We  were  buried,  therefore,  with  Him  by  the 
sprinkling  into  His  death,  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from 
the  dead,  so  we,"  &c.  Bishop  Hoadl}'  felt  and  acknowledged  this 
when  he  said,  that,  "  if  baptism  had  been  then  performed  as  it 
is  now  amongst  us,  we  should  never  have  so  much  as  heard  of  this 
form  of  expression,  of  dying  and  rising  again,  in  this  rite." 
President  Beecher  states  that  ' '  three  positions  have  been  taken  ' ' 
in  regard  to  this  passage:  first,  that  "baptism  into  Christ  is 
external,  and  of  course  the  burial  and  the  resurrection  ;  "  second, 
that  ""the  baptism  is  external,  but  the  burial  and  resurrection  are 
internal;"  third,  that  "the  baptism,  burial,  resurrection,  &c., 
are  aU  internal,"  &c.  Now,  Dr.  Dale  has  told  us  that  "  an  argu- 
ment based  on  the  harmony  of  words  and  of  conception  in  thought 
would  be  perfectly  legitimate"  ("Johannic  Baptism,"  p.  284). 
Basing  our  argument  thus  on  the  harmony  or  congruity  of  expres- 
sion in  the  apostle's  language,  we  are  indifierent  which  of  Beecher's 
three  positions  is  taken ;  for  the  ' '  perfectly  legitimate  ' '  and 
correct  argument  would  be,  that  as  there  is  a  natural  burial  in 
baptism,  so  baptism  itself  naturally  implies  an  immersion. 

We  cannot  help  feeling,  that  to  regard  such  a  phrase  as  ' '  into 
Christ,"  or  "into  the  name  of  Christ,"  &c.,  as  a  proper  baptis- 
mal element,  and  this,  too,  to  the  exclusion  of  a  representative 


216  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

water-baptism,  is  a  most  unwarranted  and  baseless  assumption. 
We  do  not  find  an^^  plain  Scripture  teaching  which  makes  the  bap- 
tismal water-rite  sj'mbolize  a  baptism  of  controlling  influence,  or  a 
baptism  into  ideal  elements,  much  less  any  which  divorces  abso- 
lutely and  forever  the  true  Christian  baptism  from  all  connection 
witli  a  baptismal  rite.  We  grant,  of  course,  that,  in  the  passage 
we  have  considered,  no  express  mention  is  made  of  baptism  in  or 
into  water ;  for  this  fuU  phrase  seldom  occurs  anywhere.  In  most 
of  the  diverss  baptisms  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  water  is 
not  explicitl}''  mentioned ;  yet  almost  ever^'body  finds  it  there. 
But,  if  there  be  no  water  in  this  baptism  "  into  Christ  "  and  "  into 
His  death,"  does  it  follow  that  a  "real  baptism"  into  "ideal 
elements  "  necessarily  precludes  a  physical  water-baptism,  or  all 
reference  and  allusion  to  such  baptism?  Dr.  Dale  allows  that 
John's  repentance-baptism  "  into  the  remission  of  sins  "  was  sym- 
bolized b}'  a  water-rite.  He  concedes  that  the  Samaritan  believers 
who  ' '  had  already  been  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost  '  into  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus '  ' '  were  also  ritually  baptized  into  that 
name ;  as  also  that  Cornelius  and  the  other  beheving  ' '  Gentiles 
were  baptized  first  b}'  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  subsequently  by 
water."  As  he  concedes  that  there  is  a  "ritual  s3'mbol  baptism 
(with  water)  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  "  and  "  into  Christ," 
so  he  must  concede  the  possible  existence  of  a  "  symbol  baptism 
with  water"  into  His  death  and  into  other  ideal  elements.  And 
if  he  can  baptize  into  Christ,  and  into  His  death,  "  with  water,"  by 
sprinMing^  wh}-  are  we  forbidden  to  baptize  into  Christ,  and  into 
His  death,  "  with  water,"  b}'  immersion?  Most  writers,  so  far  as 
we  have  seen,  make  no  special  difference  between  baptizing  into  a 
person  and  into  his  name.  While  this  may  be  true,  we  yet  think 
that  baptism  into  a  name,  as  in  the  Great  Commission  and  else- 
where, denotes  a  clearer  reference  to  an  external  ordinance.  With 
Dr.  Dale,  baptism  "into  the  name  of  Christ"  is  equivalent  to 
baptism  "into  the  remission  of  sins;  "  while  the  believer's  bap- 
tism "into  Christ"  and  "into  His  death"  denotes  that  "he  is 
brought  under  the  full  influence  of  Christ  as  Lord  and  Atoning 
Redeemer,  .  .  .  and  thus  made  partaker  of  remission  of  sins,  and 
newness  of  life."  Cannot,  now,  this  baptism  into  Christ's  death, 
embracing  the  twofold  idea  of  burial  with  Christ  and  rising  with 
Christ,  be  sjTubolized,  or  "  exhibited,"  in  the  rite  of  "  sacred  im- 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  217 

mersiou  ' '  ?  "We  can  perceive  no  insuperable  difficulty  in  the  way 
of  so  doing.  If  it  be  said  that  this  baptism  into  Christ  and  His 
death  is  never-ending,  and  hence  cannot  be  sjTabolized  by  a  per- 
petual immersion  in  water,  which  would  indeed  be  "  destructive  of 
life,"  our  reply,  if  ad  homineyn,  would  be,  that  the  Holy  Spirit's 
baptisms  ' '  into  the  name  of  Chi'ist ' '  and  ' '  into  the  remission  of 
sins,"  which  were  likewise  unending,  were  confessedly-  symbolized 
by  a  very  slight  water-rite  performance,  which  was  but  momentary 
in  duration.  And  surety  immersion  of  the  believer's  person  in 
water  can  s^Tubolize  "  eternity  of  condition  "  quite  as  well ;  and 
most  assuredly  it  can  represent  the  baptizo  idea  of  passing  out 
of  one  state  or  condition  into  another  infinitely  better  than  the 
"  non-natural  servitors  "  of  baptizo,  —  sprinkling,  or  pouring.  "We 
are  indeed  sorry  that  perpetual  immersion  in  water  is  not  compati- 
ble with  safet^^  of  human  life ;  but,  since  Dr.  Dale  assures  us  that 
baptizo  shares  in  the  same  misfortune,  —  "  never  taking  out  what  it 
puts  in,"  3'ea,  by  its  own  force,  inevitably  drowning  every  one 
whom  it  intusposes  in  water,  —  we  feel,  as  immersionists,  somewhat 
comforted  ;  and,  while  we  own  the  imperfection  of  the  immersion- 
sjTiibol,  we  endeavor  to  console  ourselves  with  the  thought,  that 
probably  no  earthty  symbol  can  fullj^  represent  spiritual  and  eter- 
nal verities.  When  Dr.  Dale  saj's,  "  There  is  no  death,  no  burial, 
no  resurrection,  of  the  Christian,  that  can  be  exhibited,"  if  he 
means  hj  spriiikling  ov  pouring,  he  is  wholly  right.  We  beheve, 
however,  that  but  very  few  intelligent  Christian  belicA^ers  are  so 
controUingly  influenced  by  bhndness  or  prejudice  as  to  deny  that 
the  repentant  believer's  spiritual  burial  and  rising  with  Christ 
is  naturallj'  and  beautifully  figured  b}^  his  immersion-burial  in 
water,  and  his  subsequent  rising  from  the  "  watery  grave."  It  is 
hardly  too  much  to  sa^'  that  the  consensus  of  aU  the  Christian  ages 
is  in  agreement  with  us  on  this  point.  But  is  the  "  baptism"  in 
our  passage  used  wholly  in  its  secondary  sense  of  "  controUiug 
influence"?  "We  are  also  glad  to  be  assured  b}^  our  author  that 
immersion  has  also  the  same  secondary'  meaning,  as  is  eA^deut 
from  such  phrases  as  "  immersed  in  debt,"  "  in  grief,"  "  in  stud- 
ies," &c.  On  p.  16  of  Dale's  "Classic  Baptism,"  we  read  that 
'•'•immerse  is  used  to  express  thorougii  influence  of  an}-  kind." 
The  author  of  "  Johannic  Baptism"  (p.  lOG)  avers  that  "the 
word  which  is  expressive  of  such  intuspositiou  "  (as  secures  iuflu- 


218  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

ence)  ' '  is  the  word  fitted  to  the  task  ' '  of  expressing  ' '  a  condi- 
tion which  is  exhaustive  of  influence."  And  again:  "It  is  the 
indefinitely  long  continuance  of  mersion  "  (immersion)  "  which 
qualifies  it  to  exert  a  controlling  influence  over  objects  physically 
mersed  "  (immersed) ,  "  and  which  makes  it  the  representative  word 
for  any  controlling  influence,"  &c.  ("  Classic  Baptism,"  p.  258.) 
Should  not,  then,  such  a  word  as  "immerse,"  which,  by  securing 
the  "  withinness,"  the  "envelopment,"  the  "intusposition,"  of 
haptizo,  can  alone  create  the  idea  of  controlling  influence,  be  also 
used  to  express  that  influence?  Our  author,  we  believe,  thinks 
that  "  immerse  into  "  does  not  so  fully  as  baptizo  eis  convey  the 
idea  of  passing  out  of  one  state  or  condition  into  a  new  one,  and 
is  not  so  clearl}"  expressive  of  "  controUing  influence."  We  are 
doubtful  respecting  these  diflerences ;  but,  barring  these,  can  Dr. 
Dale  suggest  an}^  better  rendering  of  Rom.  vi.  3  than  that  which 
the  so-called  Baptist  version  gives :  "  Know  ye  not  that  all  we  who 
were  immersed  into  Jesus  Christ  were  immersed  into  His  death?  " 
But  could  Paul  exalt  the  simple  performance  of  an  external  rite, 
even  though  it  be  the  initiatory  and  distinctive  rite  of  Christianity, 
into  a  proof  that  Christians  cannot  live  in  sin  ?  But  aU  that  he 
needed  to  prove,  and  all  that  he  could  prove,  was,  that  Christians 
could  not,  consistently  with  the  idea  of  their  Christian  conversion 
and  profession, — with  the  idea  and  pm-port,  especially,  of  their 
baptism  "  into  Christ,"  — continue  to  live  in  sin.^  This  outward, 
solemn  baptismal  profession  of  death  unto  sin  the  apostle  could 
well  appeal  to  as  evidence  that  Christians  as  such  cannot  live  in 


1  When  Paul  tells  his  brethren  at  Kome  that  both  he  and  they  were 
baptized  "into  Christ,"  we  are  probably  to  regard  this  formula,  as  also  the 
kindred  one,  "  into  the  uarae  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  as  an  abbreviated  desig- 
nation of  the  full  formiila  of  the  commission,  —  "  the  most  concise  historical 
definition  of  the  Christian  baptism"  (Stier,  Lange).  For,  as  Basil  says, 
"The  naming  of  Christ  (the  Anointed)  is  the  confession  of  the  whole 
Trinity ;  for  it  declares  God  who  anointed,  and  the  Son  who  was  anointed, 
and  the  Spirit  the  Anointing."  Hence,  as  to  be  baptized  into  Christ,  the 
incarnate  Son  of  God,  is  to  be  baptized  into  His  death;  so  a  baptism  into 
the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  will  likewise  include  the 
same  reference :  in  other  words,  while  it  denotes  our  devotedness  and  sub- 
jection to  the  entire  Godhead,  it  also  imports  our  dying  and  burial  with 
Jesus  Christ,  who,  in  his  humiliation,  sufiering,  and  death,  was  yet  "the 
Son  of  God." 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  219 

sin,  and  as  a  motive  why  they  should  not  do  so  ;  nay,  could  appeal 
to  this  much  better  than  to  any  hidden  state  of  the  heart,  of  which, 
indeed,  only  the  Omniscient  One  could  take  cognizance.  The 
apostle  could  not  know  that  his  Roman  brethren,  who,  though 
baptised  into  Christ's  death,  were  yet  planted  only  in  the  likeness 
of  that  death,  or,  in  the  language  of  the  apostolical  constitutions, 
only  died  with  Christ  "in  type"  or  figure,  were  at  any  time 
actually  dead  with  Him  to  sin,  and  were  actually  walking  in 
newness  of  life.  He  could  only  know  and  tell  them,  that  by 
their  solemn  public  baptismal  vow,  and  by  the  nature  and  purport 
of  the  rite  itself,  the}'^  professed  to  be  dead  to  sin,  and  promised 
and  obligated  themselves,  having  been  raised  with  Christ,  hence- 
forth to  walk  in  newness  of  life.  When  Paul  tells  the  Corinthian 
Christians,  "But  ye  were  washed  [in  baptism?],  but  je  were 
sanctified,  but  ye  were  were  justified,"  &c.,  does  this  prove  that 
thej^  were  actually  cleansed  and  sanctified  in  soul?  Or,  when  he 
tells  them  that  ' '  we  were  all  baptized  in  one  Spirit  into  (so  as  to 
be)  one  body,"  does  this  prove  that  the  members  of  the  "  church 
of  God  in  Corinth"  were,  as  members  of  one  body,  all  spiritually 
united,  and  that  they  duly  S3'mpathized  with  one  another?  On 
the  contrary,  in  that  church  there  was  "  env3ing,  and  strife,  and 
divisions  ;  "  and  its  baptized  members  were  stiU  carnal,  and  walked 
as  men.  There  were  sore  divisions  also  in  the  churches  of 
Galatia ;  and  yet  Paul  tells  them,  "Ye  are  aU  sons  of  God  by 
faith  in  Christ  Jesus.  For  all  ye  who  were  baptized  into  Christ 
did  put  on  Christ.  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is 
neither  bond  nor  free,  there  is  no  male  and  female  ;  for  ye  are  all 
one  in  Christ  Jesus."  It  is  evident  that  many  of  the  baptized 
disciples  of  Corinth  and  of  Galatia  failed  to  realize  in  their  daily 
walk,  and  in  their  intercourse  with  each  other,  the  idea  of  their 
baptism  in  one  Spirit,  into  one  body,  into  Christ,  and  into  His 
death ;,  and  hence  Paul  appeals  to  their  baptism  in  order  to  pro- 
duce in  them  a  proper  Christian  s^-mpathy  and  spiritual  oneness. 
"The  very  putting  on  of  Chiist,  which,  as  a  matter  of  standing 
and  profession,  is  done  in  baptism,  forms  a  subject  of  exhortation 
to  those  alread}'  baptized,  in  its  ethical  sense"  (Alford,  after 
Me3''er).  "Baptized  'into  Christ,'  into  union  and  communion 
with  Him:  .  .  .  this  is  the  true  baptism  (Acts  ^iii.  16).  But  the 
thing  signified  does  not  alwa3-s  or  necessarily  accompany  the  sign" 


220  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

(John  Eadie,  D.D.).  Hence,  also,  the  apostle  saj's  to  the  Roman 
Christians,  "  We  were  buried  therefore  with  Him,  by  the  baptism, 
into  the  death ;  that  as  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead  by  the 
glory  of  the  Father,  so  we  also  should  walls  in  newness  of  life." 
"  So  also  reckon  ye  yourselves  to  be  dead  indeed  to  sin,  but  alive 
to  God  in  Christ  Jesus.  Let  not  sin,  therefore,  reign  in  jonv 
mortal  body,  that  ye  should  obey  the  lusts  thereof;  nor  yield  your 
members  to  sin  as  instruments  of  unrighteousness,  but  yield 
3' ourselves  to  God  as  being  alive  from  the  dead."  And  to  the 
Colossians,  who  had  been  buried  with  Christ  in  the  baptism  where- 
in they  were  also  raised  with  Him,  the  apostle  says,  "  If,  then,  ye 
were  raised  together  with  Christ,  seek  those  things  which  are 
above."  To  the  same  effect,  substantially,  is  Hippolytus'  coun- 
sel: "  Keep  steadfastly  the  engagement  which  ye  took  upon  your- 
selves in  baptism."  "  The  very  mystery  of  baptism,"  says 
Theodoret,  "taught  thee  to  flee  from  sin.  For  baptism  hath  an 
image  of  the  death  of  the  Lord ;  for  in  it  thou  hadst  communion 
with  Christ,  both  of  death  and  resurrection.  It  beseems  thee, 
then,  to  live  a  new  kind  of  Ufe,  and  conformable  to  Him  with  whom 
thou  hast  shared  the  resurrection."  Cyprian  says,  "We,  there- 
fore, who  in  baptism  have  died  and  been  buried,  as  relates  to  the 
carnal  sins  of  the  old  man,  we  who  have  risen  with  Christ  by  a 
new  birth  from  heaven,  let  us  think  and  do  the  things  of  Christ." 
Chrysostom  says,  that  as  "  '  he  who  is  dead  is  thenceforth  freed 
from  sinning,'  abiding  dead,  so  also  he  who  ascendeth  from 
baptism ;  for,  since  he  hath  then  once  died,  he  ought  to  remain 
throughout  dead  to  sin.  If,  then,  thou  hast  died  in  baptism, 
remain  dead."  "What,"  saith  Basil,  "  belongeth  to  him  who 
hath  been  '  born  of  water '  ?  That,  as  Christ  died  to  sin  once,  so 
he  also  should  be  dead  and  motionless  towards  all  sin ;  as  it  is 
written,  '  As  many  as  have  been  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  have 
been  baptized  into  His  death.'  "  The  same  author  (C.  183),  or 
some  one  who  writes  in  his  name,  says,  "  which  we  seem  to  have 
covenanted  hj  baptism  in  the  water,  professing  to  have  been  cruci- 
fied, dead,  buried,  and  so  forth,  with  Him,  as  it  is  written." 
And  again :  ' '  Baptized  in  water  into  the  death  of  the  Lord,  we 
have,  as  it  were,  deposited  a  written  profession  of  having  become 
dead  to  sin  and  to  the  world,  and  of  being  alive  to  righteousnes's," 
&c.   (see  Chase's  article  on  Basil  in  "  Christian  Iie\iew.")      If 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.        '  221 

we  find  in  a  true  Christian  baptism  more  than  this,  as  we  jastlj* 
may,  we  shall,  of  course,  find  still  stronger  evidence  that  a  Christian 
cannot  continue  in  sin.  Thus  Olshausen  saj^s,  "In  this  place, 
also,  we  must  b}'  no  means  think  of  their  own  resolutions  onty  at 
baptism,  or  see  no  more  in  it  than  a  figure  ;  as  if,  by  the  one  half 
of  the  ancient  rite  of  baptism,  the  submersion^  the  death  and 
burial  of  the  old  man,  by  the  second  half  the  emersion.,  the 
resurrection  of  the  new  man,  were  no  more  than  prefigured :  we 
must  rather  take  baptism  in  its  imvard  meaning,  as  a  spiritual 
process  in  the  soul,"  &c.  This  is  not  necessarily  baptismal 
regeneration.  It  onl}'  supposes  that  a  man  has  become  a  true 
Christian  ;  has  experienced  that  change  within  him  which  baptism 
imports  and  symbolizes,  —  namely,  a  death  to  self  and  sin,  and  a 
rising  to  or  entering  on  a  new  life  ;  or,  as  in  the  apostle's  language 
to  the  Ephesians,  that  "  God,  being  rich  in  mercy,  on  account  of 
His  great  love  wherewith  He  loved  us,  made  us,  even  when  we 
were  dead  in  sins,  alive  with  Christ,  and  raised  us  up  with  Him." 
Surely  baptism,  as  expressive  of  such  a  change  and  such  a 
spiritual  condition,  is  something' "  more  than  a  mere  dipping  in 
water." 


222  '      STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

,  BAPTISM   IN   THE   CLOUD   AND    SEA. 

"And  were  all  baptized  into  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  tlie  sea." 

IN  1  Cor.  X.  1,  2,  Paul  sa3's  "  that  all  our  fathers  were  under  the 
cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the  sea,  and  were  all  baptized  " 
(literallj'  baptized  themselves,  or  allowed  themselves  to  be  bap- 
tized) "into  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  Nearly  all  these 
prepositions  have  to  be  disturbed  to  get  rid  here  of  the  semblance 
of  immersion.  The  under,  to  correspond  more  closely'  (  ?)  to  the 
historical  statements  of  Exod.  xiv.  19-22,  must  be  made  to  mean 
behind,  and  the  in  must  again  mean  by.  Our  opponents  should 
find  fault,  not  with  us,  but  with  the  apostle  rather,  for  representing 
all  the  fathers  as  being  ^'- under  the  cloud,"  when,  even  before 
their  entering  the  sea,  it  had  merel}'  passed  over  them  from  the 
front  to  the  rear,  and  "stood  behind  them;"  as  also  for  repre- 
senting them  as  surrounded  and  enveloped,  in  close  contact  as  it 
were,  with  the  cloud  and  sea,  and  thus  baptizing  themselves  unto 
Moses  "  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,"  when  the  cloud,  which  jqX, 
was  not  a  water  but  a  fire  cloud,  was  thus  aloof  from  them  and 
behind  them,  and  the  water- walls  of  the  sea  were  probably  but  a 
few  feet  high  (?),  and  several  miles  apart  (?),  to  say  nothing  of 
their  going  through  the  sea  on  dry  ground.  'How  could  Paul  see 
any  baptismal  intusposition  or  immersion  here  ? 

It  is  said  that  "  every  comparison  must  halt  somewhere."  And 
Dr.  Dale  has  told  us  that  "  ever}' metaphor  "  (and  this,  perhaps, 
wiU  embrace  figures  in  general)  "presents  to  us  terms  between 
which  there  are  many  incongruities,  and  one,  at  least,  point  of 
resemblance :  the  incongi'uities  are  to  be  thrown  aside  as  nothing 
to  the  purpose,"  &c.     Perhaps  Paul  himself  would  here  object  to 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  223 

exact  measurements  and  strict  literalness.  His  design,  evidently, 
was  to  guard  his  Corinthian  brethren  from  trusting  in  the  use  of 
religious  observances  while  living  in  practical  unrighteousness. 
He  tells  them  that  their  fathers  once  enjoyed  religious  ordinances 
similar  to  theirs  ;  that  the}'  had  a  Mosaic  baptism,  and  an  eating 
and  drinldng  of  spiritual  food  and  drink,  even  as  Christians  have 
a  Christian  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  But,  while  all  the 
fathers  participated  in  these  outward  observances,  most  of  them 
failed  to  obtain  God's  favor.  They  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses 
in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea ;  yet  nearly  all  of  them,  rejecting  their 
chosen  leader,  rendered  themselves  displeasing  to  God,  and  their 
carcasses  fell  in  the  wilderness. 

They  were  all  ^'- under  the  cloud,  and  they  were  all  baptized 
unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  Mej^er  says,  "Cloud 
and  sea,  as  things  analogous  to  the  water  of  baptism,  must,  ac- 
cording to  their  nature,  be  regarded  as  homogeneous.  .  .  .  Both 
cloud  and  sea  together  is  a  ty^Q  of  baptism."  The  cloud.,  in  fact, 
is  never  spoken  of  as  a  ^re-cloud ;  though,  on  the  night  of  the 
sea-crossing,  it  gave  light  to  the  Israelites,  while  it  was  cloud  and 
darkness  to  the  Egyptians.  But  even  here  the  cloud  and  the  fire 
are  spoken  of  as  distinct  manifestations ;  for  Jehovah,  in  the 
morning  watch,  "looked  unto  the  host  of  the  Egyptians  through 
the  pillar  of  fire  and  of  the  cloud."  It  passed  over,  indeed,  and 
went  behind,  the  Israelites  ;  while  it  stiU  enshrouded  and  covered 
them  with  its  light-giving,  protecting  influence,  "^e  spread  a 
cloud  for  a  covering.,  and  fire  to  give  light  in  the  night"  (Ps.  cv. 
39).  When  they  passed  through  the  sea,  "the  waters"  (which 
were  ' '  made  to  stand  as  a  heap  " )  "  were  a  wall  unto  them  on  their 
right  hand  and  on  their  left. ' '  The  circumstance  that  they  went 
through  the  sea  on  dry  ground,  the  apostle,  as  De  Wette  sa3's, 
"  designedly  overlooks."  Dr.  Dale  may  set  this  down  as  an  in- 
congruity, "  to  be  thrown  aside  "  amid  the  manj'  "resemblances  " 
of  immersion.  The  Israelites  went  down  into  the  Red  Sea,  quit- 
ting forever  the  service  of  Pharaoh,  and  thenceforth  followed  Moses 
as  their  professed  leader.  Professor  Fee,  speaking  of  the  bap- 
tism of  proselytes,  says,  that,  "if  the  proselj'te  was  to  remain 
a  servant,  the  relation  was  expressed  thus :  tahal  bshem  aved, 
baptized  into  the  name  of  a  servant;  i.e.,  into  the  relation  of  a 
servant.   .   .   .  When  the  name  is  omitted,  as  it  often  is  in  our 


224  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

version,  the  import  of  eis  is  often  rendered  by  unto;  thus:  'I 
indeed  baptize  you  imto  repentance  ; '  '  baptized  U7ito  Moses,'  not 
literally  into  him.  The  prosel}i;e  servant  was  not  brought  by  his 
baptism  into  another  person,  his  master,  but  unto  him,  or  into  the 
relation  of  a  servant  to  him."  The  Israelites  baptized  themselves 
unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea ;  and,  while  the  Eg3qptians 
were  drowned,  they  emerged  in  safety  on  the  opposite  shore  ;  and 
on  their  journe}^  they  had  been  surrounded  with  enough  of  water, 
cloud  and  sea,  for  Paul  to  call  it  a  baptism.  Saj^s  Professor 
Stuart,  "  The  reason  and  ground  for  such  an  expression  (baptized 
in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea)  must  be,  so  far  as  I  can  discern,  a 
surrounding  of  the  Israelites  on  different  sides  by  the  cloud  and 
by  the  sea,  although  neither  the  cloud  nor  the  sea  touched  them. 
It  is,  therefore,  a  kind  of  figurative  mode  of  expression  derived 
from  the  idea  that  baptizing  is  surrounding  with  a  Jluid."  We 
might  make  many  similar  quotations  from  Pedobaptist  authors, 
Turretine,  Grotius,  Witsius,  Poole,  Macknight,  "Whitby,  Fair- 
bairn,  Olshausen,  Bloomfield,  &c.,  and  even  from  Bengel  and 
Alford,  all  of  whom  find,  not  a  literal,  but  a  figurative  and  "  dry," 
immersion  in  this  Mosaic  baptism  of  the  Israehtes.  Bengel,  who, 
in  his  "Gnomon,"  but  slightly  favors  the  immersion  cause,  yet 
says,  "Paul  very  agreeably  denominates  it  thus  (baptism)  be- 
cause a  cloud  and  the  sea  are  both  of  a  water}'  nature,  therefore 
Paul  says  nothing  of  the  &erj  pillar ;  and  because  the  cloud  and 
the  sea  withdrew  the  fathers  from  sight,  and  returned  them  almost 
in  a  similar  manner  as  the  water  does  those  that  are  baptized." 
(See  further  testimonies  in  Ingham's  "Handbook  on  Baptism," 
pp.  242,  243.)  This  may  not  have  been  designed  properly  to  be 
a  type  of  baptism ;  yet  Paul  uses  it  as  such,  or  rather  as  an 
image,  or  sj'mbol,  or  resemblance,  of  baptism,  a  "  quasi-baptism  " 
as  De  "VVette  calls  it ;  even  as  their  partaking  of  the  spiritual  food 
and  drink  was  an  image,  sj^mbol,  or  semblance,  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  Paul  says  these  things  happened  to  them  as  examples 
and  warnings  ;  and  beautifully  does  he  make  them  answer  his  pur- 
pose,—  of  warning  his  brethren  and  ourselves,  while  participating 
in  religious  privileges  and  ordinances,  to  flee  all  unrighteousness. 

Most  of  the  older  Pedobaptist  writers  of  this  country  —  as  Absa- 
lom Peters,  John  H.  Beckwith,  Edwin  Hall,  A.  G.  Fairchild, 
and  many  others  —  refer  this  baptism  in  the  cloud  to  the  sprinkling 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  225 

of  the  raindrops  falling  from  the  cloud  as  it  passed  over  them, 
and  find  a  confirmation  of  this  "\dew  in  Ps.  Ixxvii.  17  :  "  The  clouds 
poured  out  water,"  &c.  So  the  baptism  in  the  sea  was  effected 
by  the  sjjray  from  the  waters  which  was  blown  upon  them  by  the 
wind.  Rather  than  regard  this  baptism  as  effected  by  such  an 
application  of  water,  we  should  prefer,  with  Carson,  to  call  it  a 
"dry  dip."  Dr.  Dale  resolves  this  cloud-and-sea  baptism,  as  he 
does  other  baptisms,  whether  literal  or  figurative,  into  an  intangi- 
ble ideal  influence!  By  means  of  the  cloud  and  of  the  sea,  the 
Israelites,  amounting  to  "  two  million  men,  women,  and  children," 
baptized  themselves  ideally  into  Moses  ;  and  thus  ideally  secured 
a  pervasive,  assimilating  Mosaic  influence,  which  controlled  them, 
after  an  ideal  manner,  "through  an  indefinitely  prolonged  period 
of  time."  In  other  words,  they  were  so  far  controllingly  influ- 
enced by  the  miracle  of  the  cloud  and  sea,  that  they  intusposed 
themselves  into  Moses  (figuratively)  ;  and  by  this  ideal  imaginary 
intusposition  a  direct  Mosaic  controlling  influence  was  imparted 
to  them  (ideally),  which  led,  or  should  have  led  them  to  become 
subject  to  Moses  for  an  "  indefinite  period,"  or  a  period  of  "  un- 
limited continuance."  Here,  indeed,  is  an  ideal  "  baptism  of 
(ideal)  influence  ' '  !  But  why  could  not  thej'^  be  controllingly  in>- 
fluenced  to  become  subject  to  Moses  by  their  wonderful  miracle- 
wrought  intusposition  ' '  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea  ' '  ?  Was  this 
intusposition  any  more  "  ideal  "  and  imaginary  than  their  alleged 
ideal  intusposition  "into  Moses"?  Our  author  says  that  the 
Israehtes,  before  leaving  Egypt,  had  "no  established  confidence - 
in  Moses  :  "  but,  after  they  had  been  delivered  so  miraculously  by 
the  cloud  and  by  the  sea,  they  were  controllingly  infiuenced  into 
subjection  to  Moses,  and  to  an  established  faith  in  him ;  in  evi- 
dence of  which  he  adduces  Exod.  xiv.  31 :  "And  Israel  saw  that 
great  work  which  the  Lord  did  upon  the  Egyptians ;  and .  the 
people  feared  the  Lord,  and  believed  the  Lord,  and  His  servant 
Moses."  In  his  view  they  were  not  baptized  tiU  after  they  had', 
passed  through  the  sea ;  but  Theoph3'lact  (C.  196)  affirms  that 
' '  the  being  under  the  cloud  and  the  passing  through  the  sea  was  ■ 
a  type  of  baptism."  And  Paul,  if  we  let  the  prepositions  remain 
unmolested,  seems  to  say  the  same  thing:  "  baptized  into  Moses, 
in  the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea."  "VYe  only  remark  fm'ther,  as  against 
the  influence-view  of  this  baptism,  that  the  Israelites  had  faith  ia 


226  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

Moses  before  they  left  Egj-pt  (Exod.  iv.  31),  and  that  they  lost 
•it  soon  after  the  sea  was  crossed ;  for  only  three  da^'s  after  this 
we  find  them  at  Marah's  waters  murmuring  against  3Ioses.  Not 
very  thoroughly  or  controlling^  influenced  were  the}"  by  their 
baptism  ;  for,  though  all  had  been  baptized,  yet  "  in  most  of  them 
God  had  no  pleasure,  for  they  were  overthrown  in  the  wilderness." 
Many  of  the  fathers,  we  ma}-  remark,  saw  in  the  actual  immer- 
sion and  drowning  of  Pharaoh  and  his  hosts  in  the  Red  Sea, 
as  also  in  the  destruction  of  the  ungodly  world  "by  the  deluge 
(1  Pet.  iii.  20,  21),  a  figure  of  the  drowning  and  destruction  of 
the  De"S"il  and  one's  sins  in  Christian  baptism.  Chrysostom  has 
already  showed  us  "a  pool  wherein  one  was  buried,  another  rose. 
The  Eg3^tians  were  drowned  in  the  Red  Sea,  and  the  Israelites 
arose  out  of  it.  And  the  same  thing  which  buries  the  one  pro- 
duces the  other.  Marvel  not  that  there  is  both  birth  and  de- 
struction in  baptism."  "The  ancients,"  saj's  Dr.  Pusey  in  his 
"  Scriptural  Views  of  Holy  Baptism  "  (p.  240),  "  saw  in  the  flood 
of  waters  the  baptism  of  the  expiated,  cleansed,  and  restored 
world"  (see  in  "Tracts  for  the  Times,"  No.  67,  where  manj^ 
references  to  the  fathers  are  given  b}^  this  author) .  As  Paul  finds 
a  baptism  in  the  passing  through  of  the  Red  Sea,  so  Peter  sees  a 
type  of  baptism  in  the  Noachian  flood ;  and  for  this  reason  we 
may  here  briefly  consider  this  passage  in  Peter.  This  apostle 
asserts  that  "  a  few,  that  is,  eight  souls,  were  saved  in  the  ark 
through  ivater."  The  same  water  which  drowned  the  ungodly 
upbore  the  ark  in  safet}",  delivering  thus  the  righteous  from  the 
companionship  and  from  the  doom  of  the  wicked :  and  hence  it 
can  be  said  that  Noah  and  his  family  were  saved  both  in  the  ark, 
and  through  or  b}'  water;  "which,"  i.e.  water,  generally  (we 
here  follow  the  textus  receptus),  in  an  "antitype,"  or  as  anti- 
typical  of  that  saving  water,  now  saves  us  (or  you)  also  (not 
the  outward  washing  and  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh, 
but  the  eperotema,  literally  inquiry,  perhaps  here  equivalent  to 
the  expressed  desire  of  a  good  conscience, — eis  theon, — with 
reference  to  God,  or  to  obeying  the  divine  will)  "  b}''  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  Christ."  Our  authorized  version  makes  this  sa^dng 
baptism  to  consist  in  ' '  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward 
God."  The  "Bible  Union"  version  substitutes  "requirement" 
for  "  answer."     Pressense  finds  in  it  the  idea  of  "  engagement." 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  227 

Luther  has  it,  ' '  The  covenant  of  a  good  conscience  with  God ; ' ' 
Tyndale,  "In  tliat  a  good  conscience  consenteth  to  God;"  the 
old  SjTiac,  "  When  ye  confess  God  with  a  pure  conscience  ;  "  the 
Vulgate,  "  Conscientise  bonse  interrogatio  in  Deum."  Others,  as 
Bengel,  make  it  the  inquiry,  request,  or  desii-e  (for  salvation, 
du'ection,  &c.),  directed  to  God,  of  a  good  conscience.  Professor 
Cremer  says  it  "is  that  pertaining  to  a  good  conscience  which  has 
been  asked  and  obtained  of  God."  Others,  as  Wiesinger,  Hof- 
mann,  "Weiss,  and  Professor  Noyes,  who  make  suneideseos  (con- 
science) the  genitive  objective,  regard  this  eperotema  as  a  petition, 
or  request,  or  earnest  seeking  for  a  good  conscience.  De  Wette, 
in  his  "  Exegetisches  Handbuch,"  has  "  Angelobuug,"  a  vow  or 
promise  to  God  of  a  good  conscience,  that  is,  to  keep  a  good  con- 
science ;  a  rendering  which  is  adopted  by  Huther,  the  continuator 
of  Meyer :  but  in  his  "  Heilige  Schrift"  he  gives  the  rendering 
preferred  by  Winer,  Lange,  and  Alford  ;  to  wit,  the  inquiry  of  a 
good  conscience  after  God.  Neander,  De  Wette,  Huther,  and 
many  others,  understand  this  word  of  the  questions  asked,  and  of 
the  responses  made  in  baptism.  For  criticisms  on  these  and  other 
interpretations  we  refer  our  readers  to  Matthies'  "  Baptismatis 
Expositio,"  §  18,  p.  150,  seg.,  and  to  the  different  commentaries 
on  this  passage;  also  to  Dr.  Hovej^'s  "Manual  of  Theology." 
According  to  the  latest  expressed  views  of  this  author,  baptism  ia 
"the  candidate's  solemn  and  objective  request  (directed  to  God 
from  the  new  moral  nature)  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  which  is 
promised  to  everj^  behever  in  Chiist ;  submission  to  baptism  being 
the  prescribed  and  solemn  confession  of  faith,  and  being,  there- 
fore, said  to  seek  and  secure  that  which  faith  actuall}'  seeks  and 
receives."  This  interpretation  has  been  charged  with  a  leaning 
towards  ' '  Campbelhsm : ' '  but  the  distinguished  president,  and 
professor  of  theology  at  Newton,  avers  that  he  has  "  no  sympathy 
with  the  views  of  Alexander  Campbell  on  this  point;"  and  the 
above  charge  we  must  deem  to  be  manifest^  baseless.  We  may 
here  add  that  Dr.  Hove}',  after  discussing  in  his  Manual  the  ques- 
tion whether  suneideseos  is  to  be  regarded  as  in  the  objective  or 
subjective  genitive,  thus  pertinently  remarks:  "But  an}' view  of 
the  passage  is  unfavorable  to  i??/an^-baptism ;  for  infants  neither 
seek  nor  obey  a  good  conscience  in  baptism."  Yet  Dr.  Pnsey 
asserts  that  the  apostle  Peter  "held  the  flood,  which  covered  the 


228  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

face  of  the  whole  earth  and  the  tops  of  the  highest  mountains,  and 
prevailed  upwards,- to  be  but  a  shadow  and  type  of  the  baptismal 
stream"  (why  not  basin?)  "which  each  of  our  little  ones  enters 
as  '  a  child  of  wrath,'  and  arises  '  a  child  of  God,  a  member  of 
Christ,  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.'  " 

The  fathers,  as  we  have  above  indicated,  saw  a  t;y"pe  of  baptism, 
not  only  in  the  deliverances,  but  in  the  destructions,  effected  by 
the  waters  of  the  flood  and  of  the  Red  Sea.  Their  belief  was,  that 
"  the  water  of  baptism,"  to  use  De  Wette's  -remark  on  1  Pet.  iii. 
21,  "at  the  same  time  buries  and  saves."  Luther,  in  his  "Form 
for  the  Baptism  of  Infants,"  published  in  1526,  follows  the  patristic 
interpretation :  "  Omnipotens  seterne  Deus,  qui  pro  judicio  tuo 
severe,  mundum  infidelem  diluvio  perdidisti,  et  fidelem  Noah  cum 
octo  animabus  pro  tua  magna  misericordia  custodivisti,  et  Pharonem 
induratum  cum  suo  exercitu  in  mari  rubro  submersisti,  et  populum 
tuum  siccis  pedibus  traduxisti,  quibus  historiis  lavacrum  hoc  Bap- 
tismi  prsefigurasti,"  &c.  This  mention  of  the  destruction  of  the 
Old  World  and  of  the  "  obstinate  "  Pharaoh  by  water  is  repeated 
in  the  Nuremburg  Liturgy,  1533,  in  Hermann's  Consultation,  or 
Cologne  Liturgy,  1543,  and  in  the  first  Prayer-Book  of  Edward 
VI.,  1549.     See  Note  I.,  end  of  the  volume. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  229 


CHAPTER    XXV. 


BAPTISMAL   BATHING. 


"  r  I  iHE  common  way  of  Greek  bathing  was,  not  by  immersion, 
.  JL  but  by  pouring :  therefore  the  use  of  loutron ' '  (bathing  or 
bath)  ' '  in  baptism  does  not  imply  that  baptism  was  an  immersion  ' ' 
(Dale's  "Christie  Baptism,"  p.  504).  "Generally  the  custom 
of  bathing  in  the  East,  unless  it  were  in  a  pool  or  river  (and  not 
always  with  that  exception) ,  was  performed  by  standing  beside  a 
bath,  and  having  the  water  poured  upon  the  bather  by  an  attend- 
ant" (Hutchings'  "Mode  of  Baptism,"  p.  82).  And  Professor 
Wilson  of  Belfast  states  that  the  "  ordinar}^  system  of  bathing  in 
ancient  Greece  knew  no  immersion,  and  embraced  no  covering  of 
the  body  with  water."  Per  contra,  President  Beecher  derives  the 
patristic  practice  of  immersion,  in  part,  from  "Oriental  usages, 
and  the  habits  of  warmer  regions.  .  .  .  Did  not  Christianity 
begin  in  the  warm  regions  of  the  East,  and  in  the  midst  of  a  people 
whose  climate,  habits,  costume,  and  mode  of  life,  were  all  adapted 
to  bathing?  "  Rev.  Philippe  Wolff  likewise  traces  the  practice  of 
immersion  back  to  the  washings  or  immersions  of  heathen  usage, 
and  even  finds  one  instance  of  heathen  trine  immersion  in  the 
Tiber. ^  And  Doddridge  says,  "  Considering  how  frequently  bath- 
ing was  used  in  those  hot  countries,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  that 


1  "Et  totum  semel  espiet  annum, 
Hibernum  fracta  glacie  descendet  in  amnem, 
Ter  matutino  Tiberi  mergetiir  et  ipsis 
Vorticibus  timidum  caput  abluet." 

Juvenal,  Sat.  vi.  521, 


See  also  in  Persius,  Sat.  ii.  15 :  • 


"  Hsec  sancte  ut  poscas  Tiberino  in  gurgite  mergis. 
Mane  caput  bis  Jerque  et  noctem  flumine  purgas." 


230  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

baptism  was  generally  administered  bj^  immersion."  We  leave 
these  somewhat  counter  statements  to  neutralize  each  other. 

It  is  difficult  for  us  in  this  Western  and  Northern  world  to 
realize  that  bodil}^  ablution  in  the  ancient  East  was  nearly  as 
common  as  the  washing  of  our  hands  and  faces.  We  do  not  sup- 
pose that  this  bathing  —  whether  expressed  by  the  Hebrew  rahats, 
the  Greek  louo,  or  the  Latin  lavo  —  always  denoted  an  entire  im- 
mersion, any  more  than  our  English  word  "  bathe  ;  "  yet  we  take  it 
that  the  washing  of  the  whole  person,  whether  in  rivers,  pools,  or 
other  baths,  is  generally  implied,  at  least  where  no  limitation  is 
expressed.  The  sevenfold  bathing  (rahats)  in  the  Jordan,  en- 
joined .upon  the  leper  Naaman  by  the  prophet,  implied  to  his  mind 
the  necessity  or  expedienc}'  or  propriety  of  a  sevenfold  dipping 
(tabal)  of  himself  in  it ;  and  hence  the  Septuagint,  or  "  Seventy," 
speaks,  not  of  his  purifying  himself  seven  times,  nor  of  his  control- 
lingly  influencing  himself  seven  times,  but  of  his  baptizing  himself 
seven  times  in  the  river.  The  baptism  of  the  corpse-defiled  man 
(in  Ecclus.  xxxiv.  25)  is  also  called,  as  we  have  seen,  a  loutron,  or 
bathing.  In  reference  to  Naaman's  baptismal  bathing,  Mr.  Noel, 
as  quoted  in  Ingham's  "  Handbook  on  Baptism,"  p.  292,  thus  re- 
marks :  "  B}^  the  word  '  wash  '  it  is  obvious  that  Elisha  meant  bathe, 
or  dip  :  the  whole  body  being  leprous,  the  whole  was  to  be  washed. 
To  dip,  also,  was  a  definite  act  which  could  be  repeated  seven 
times ;  but  any  other  washing  would  be  indefinite,  and  the  leper 
would  not  know  whether  snxj  amount  of  washing  at  one  time 
could  be  taken  for  seven  washings.  Elisha  also  clearly  referred 
in  this  command  to  the  Mosaic  law  respecting  the  leper,  which  was 
as  follows  :  '  He  that  is  to  be  cleansed  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and 
shave  ofi"  all  his  hau',  and  wash  himself  in  water,  that  he  vaaj  be 
clean'  (Lev.  xiv.  8).  As  the  leper  was  wholl}^  unclean,  he  must 
be  whoU}'  washed.  The  command,  therefore,  meant  that  he  should 
bathe  himself,  and  so  the  Jews  correctly  understood  it.  .  .  . 
When,  therefore,  Elisha  said,  '  Go  and  wash  th^'self  in  Jordan,' 
he  meant,  '  Go  and  bathe  thj'self,  according  to  the  law  of  the  leper 
on  the  day  of  his  cleansing.'  Of  course,  Naaman,  if  he  fulfilled 
the  command  of  Elisha,  must  necessarily  bathe  himself  in  the 
Jordan  seven  times  ;  and  the  narrative  accordingly  relates,  '  Then 
went  he  down  and  dipped  himself  in  the  Jordan  seven  times.'  " 

We  remark  further,  that,  in  the  New  Testament  (Tit.   iii.  5  ; 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  231 

Epli.  T.  2G  ;  Heb.  x.  22),  the  phrases,  "bathing  of  regeneration," 
'•bathing  of  water  in  the  word,"  and  "bodies  bathed  in  pure 
v»-ater,"  are  commonly  supposed  to  refer  to  baptism;  and  the 
very  frequent  use  of  louo  and  lavo,  loutron  and  lavacrum,  by  the 
Chi'istian  fathers,  when  treating  of  baptism,  is  well  known  (see 
in  Conant's  "  Baptizein,"  Exs.  203,  226,  228,  230,  &c.).  Robin- 
son, as  we  have  seen,  defines  louo  (the  especial  Greek  representa- 
tive of  Q'ahats)  "  to  bathe,  to  wash  the  person  or  whole  bod}',  not 
merel}'  the  hands  or  face,  which  is  expressed  by  nipto."  Such 
a  definition  is  authorized  by  our  Saviour's  words  in  John  xiii.  10  : 
"He  that  has  bathed  (louo)  has  no  need  save  to  wash  the  feet 
{nipto),  but  is  wholly  clean."  A  like  contrast  of  bapjtizo  and 
nipto  is  seen  in  Mark  vii.  3,  4,  where  the  use  of  the  generic  wash 
for  both  verbs  renders  the  passage  in  our  version  well-nigh  mean- 
ingless. For  unless  there  be  an  advance  of  thought  here,  from  the 
simple  and  customary  washing  of  the  hands  before  eating  to  the 
bathing  of  the  body  (after  coming  from  the  market)  before  eating, 
as  also  a  hke  advance  of  thought  (not  fuU}^  expressed) ,  from  a 
slight  and  customary  washing  of  pots,  cups,  &c.,  to  their  complete 
submergence  in  water,  as  demanded  b}^  Pharisaic  scrupulosity, 
then  the  explanatory  statements  of  the  evangelist  here  are  in 
part  wholl}-  inept  and  forceless.  Professor  Wilson  concedes  that 
"  the  baptism  referred  to  in  Mark  we  consider  a  general  ablution, 
because  the  occasion  is  more  uncommon,  and  also  because  it  is 
presented  in  contrast  with  a  partial  washing."  Professor  Xo^'es, 
who,  in  his  translation  of  the  New  Testament,  follows  the  Greek 
text  of  Tischendorf,  thus  renders  ^^  bap>tisdntai,"  .  .  .  '■'baptis- 
mous,"  &c.,  "unless  they  bathe"  .  .  .  "the  dipping  of  cups 
and  pitchers  and  brazen  vessels  ;  "  and  Dr.  E.  H.  Plumptre,  com- 
menting (in  Ellicott's  "  New -Testament  Commentary  for  Enghsh 
Readers")  on  the  phrase,  "except  the}' wash  "  (Mark  vii.  4), 
says,  "  The  Greek  verb  [baptisontai']  differs  from  that  in  the  pre- 
vious verse  [^mpsontai'] ,  and  implies  the  washing  or  immersion  .  .  . 
of  the  whole  body,  as  the  former  does  of  part."  A  like  contrast 
is  found  in  the  Mishna,  one  of  whose  regulations  is  that  "men 
must  wash  their  hands  for  ordinary  eating,  but  for  [eating]  tithes 
and  for  the  hea-\-e-off"ering  [their  whole  persons]  must  be  bap- 
tized." The  Talmud  does  indeed  speak  of  baptizing  lando.  but 
never  as  being  synon}'mous  Avith  the  ordinary  washir.g  of  hai.Jo. 


232  STUDIES  OUT  BAPTISM. 

Thus  "in  the  heave-offering,  if  one  of  the  hands  be  unclean, 
its  fellow  maj'  he  clean  ;  but  in  hoi}'  things  one  must  baptize  both 
hands,  because  each  renders  its  fellow  unclean  for  holy  things,  but 
not  for  the  heave-offering."  Beckwith  has  a  little  work,  entitled 
"  Immersion  not  Baptism  ;  "  and  he  certainly  proves  his  thesis,  if 
his  rendering  of  this  passage  in  Mark  is  correct.  We  give  it  as  a 
remarkable  specimen  of  a  remarkablj^  original  translation:  "And 
when  they  saw  some  of  His  disciples  eat  bread  with  defiled,  that 
is  to  say,  with  unbaptized  hands,  they  found  fault ;  for  the  Phari- 
sees and  all  the  Jews,  except  they  baptize  (nipto)  their  hands,  eat 
not.  .  .  .  Wh}^  walk  not  thy  disciples  according  to  the  tradition 
of  the  elders,  but  eat  bread  with  unbaptized  hands?  "  The  trans- 
lators, he  says,  have  rendered  the  word  "baptize  "  in  our  Bible 
"  wash  "  and  "washed  ;  "  ^'■but  the  origincd  is  as  above  "  !  We 
may  here  remark,  that  the  elder  Lightfoot,  Wetstein,  Rosenmiiller, 
and  George  Campbell,  refer  this  after-market  baptizing.,  of  which 
Mark  does  indeed  make  mention,  not  to  a  bodily  bathing,  but  to 
the  immersing  of  their  hands  in  water  ;  while  Kuinoel,  Olshausen, 
Lange,  and  Bleek,  with  the  Syriac,  Arabic,  and  other  New-Testa- 
ment versions,  make  it  refer  to  the  cleansing  of  the  food  purchased 
in  the  market.  We  have  no  faith  in  any  such  interpretation.  We 
believe,  with  Mej'er,  that  the  word  baptisontai  "is  to  be  under- 
stood of  immersion.,  which  the  word  in  the  classic  Greek  and  in 
the  New  Testament  everywhere  means  (compare  Beza)  ;  i.e.,  here, 
according  to  the  context,  to  talce  a  bath.  .  .  .  The  representation 
proceeds  in  the  wa}^  of  climax :  before  eating  thej'  observe  the 
hand- washing  alwaj's,  but  bathing  when  they  come  from  the  market 
and  would  eat."  Luke  xi.  38,  to  which  we  shall  presently  refer, 
is  to  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  Mark's  full  description. 

Recurring  again  to  the  Old  Testament,  we  remark  that  the  oft- 
enjoined  ivashing  of  the  flesh  ("  Seventy,"  louo  to  soma.,  bathing  the 
body),  especially  when  connected  with  the  washing  of  the  clothes, 
and  distinguished  from  the  washing  of  the  hands  and  feet,  natu- 
rally implies  an  entire  bathing.  Rabbi  Maimonides,  "the  second 
Moses,"  says,  "  Every  person  baptized  must  dip  his  whole  bod3\ 
.  .  .  And,  wheresoever  in  the  law  washing  of  the  bod}'  or  gar- 
ments is  mentioned,  it  means  nothing  else  than  the  washing  of  the 
whole  body.  For  if  an}'  wash  himself  all  over,  except  the  tip  of 
his  little  finger,  he  is  still  in  his  uncleanness.    And,  if  any  one  hath 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  233 

much  hair,  he  must  wash  all  the  hair  of  his  head  ;  for  that  also  was 
reckoned  for  the  bod3^  But  if  any  should  enter  into  the  water 
with  their  clothes  on,  3'et  their  washing  holds  good."  We  do  not, 
of  course,  think  that  an  entire  bathing  always  denotes  a  literal 
immersion,  but  that  it  is  equivalent  to  such  immersion,  and  that  a 
full  immersion  always  involves  an  entire  bathing,  and  is  the  most 
convenient  way  to  effect  such  a  bathing,  especially  the  frequently 
required  repetition  of  such  bathing.  Thus  from  Lev.  xvi.  4,  24,  we 
learn  that  the  high  priest  had  twice  to  bathe  his  person  ("  Seven- 
ty," his  whole  body)  on  the  day  of  atonement,  when  he  entered 
into  the  hoty  of  holies  ;  and  in  the  later  ritual  of  the  second  temple' 
(as  we  read  in  Smith's  "  Bible  Dictionarj^,"  art.  "  Bathing")  he 
had  to  bathe  himself  ^-we  times,  and  wash  his  hands  and  feet  ten 
times :  and  we  cannot  suppose  the  ablution  on  this  most  solemn 
occasion  was  any  thing  less  than  the  bathing  of  the  entire  person. 
The  leper  for  his  cleansing  had,  in  the  course  of  a  week,  twice  to 
shave  off  all  his  hair  from  his  head,  and  his  beard,  and  his  ej^ebrows, 
even  all  his  hair,  and  twice  to  bathe  his  body  in  water  (Lev.  xiv. 
8,  9).  The  thorough  bathing  which  the  leper  needed  must  have 
involved  a  complete  immersion.  Herodotus  (ii.  37)  tells  us  that 
the  Eg}^tian  "priests  shave  their  whole  body  every  thiixl  day," 
and  "wash  themselves  in  cold  water  twice  every  da}",  and  twice 
ever}'  night."  And  the  Mystoe,  on  the  second  day  of  the  Eleu- 
sinian  mysteries,  "  marched  in  solemn  procession  to  the  seacoast, 
where  they  purified  themselves  by  bathing."  And  Josephus  says 
that  one  of  the  Jewish  sects,  the  Essenes,  about  mid-day  "bathe 
their  bodies  in  cold  water,"  and  afterwards  "  go  after  a  pure  man- 
ner into  the  dining-room,"  &c.  In  Mark  vii.  4  we  have  learned 
that  the  superstitious  Pharisees,  those  "  sticklers  for  outward  cere- 
monies," were  accustomed  before  eating  to  baptize  themselves,  or 
take  a  bath,  after  coming  from  the  market.  And  one  Pharisee 
(Luke  xi.  38)  wondered  that  Jesus  did  not  baptize  Himself  before 
dinner,  after  His  frequent  contact  with  the  thronging  multitudes, 
to  say  nothing  of  His  casting  out  a  demon  besides  (see  vers.  14, 
27,  29)  ;  all  of  which,  to  the  Pharisee's  mind,  was  doubtless  equiva- 
lent to  a  marA:ei  exposure  (Mark  vii.  4),  as  above.  "Jesus  had 
just  come  from  the  crowd ;  yea.  He  had  just  cast  out  a  demon 
(ver.  14)  :  therefore  thej^  expected  that  He,  before  breakfast,  would 
first  cleanse  Himself  by  immersion;  that  is,  by  a  bath  "  (Meyer). 


234  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

Dr.  Plumptre,  in  Ellicott's  "  Commentaiy  for  English  Readers," 
commenting  on  Luke  xi.  38,  says,  "  Here  the  word  '  washed  '  (hter- 
ally,  though  of  course  not  in  the  technical  sense,  baptized)  implies 
actual  immersion,  or  at  least  a  process  that  took  in  the  whole 
bod3^"  "  There  is  no  intimation  in  Luke  xi.  38,"  says  Professor 
Conant,  ' '  that  this  was  always  practised  before  dinner :  on  the 
contrary',  the  full  and  minute  statement  in  Mark  vii.  3,  4,  forbids 
this  supposition  ;  and  Luke  xi.  38  must  be  understood  accordingly. 
It  was  the  case  mentioned  in  ver.  4  of  Mark's  statement,  the 
Sa^'iour  having  come  from  a  crowd."  Were  it  not  for  this  unusual 
'exposure  to  uncleanness,  even  Pharisaic  ritualism  would  have  been 
satisfied  with  the  customary  hand-washing  before  eating.  So  we 
read  of  a  sect  among  the  Abyssinians,  called  the  Kemmont,  who 
' '  wash  themselves  from  head  to  foot  after  coming  from  the  market, 
or  any  pubhc  place  where  they  may  have  touched  any  one  of  a  sect 
different  from  their  own,  esteeming  all  such  unclean."  Ritualistic 
self-righteousness  or  excessive  superstition  would  do  much  more 
than  this  for  outward  purification.  Yet,  as  I  read  ancient  history, 
the  taking  of  a  bath,  either  as  a  means  of  health  or  as  a  luxury, 
before  the  principal  meal  of  the  day,  was  nearlj"  as  common  as 
the  meal-taking  itself;  and  this  bathing,  moreover,  was  entirely 
distinct  from  the  washing  of  hands  immediately  before  and  during 
the  meal.  In  Smith's  "  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman  Antiqui- 
ties," art.  "Baths,"  we  read,  that,  "  among  the  Greeks  as  well  as 
Romans,  bathing  was  alwaj^s  a  preliminary  to  the  hour  of  meals : 
indeed,  the  process  of  eating  seems  to  have  followed  as  a  matter 
of  course  upon  that  of  bathing."  Again :  "It  was  the  usual  and 
constant  habit  of  the  Romans  to  take  the  bath  after  exercise,  and 
previously  to  their  principal  meal."  Castel  (in  his  "  Villas  of  the 
Ancients,"  p.  31)  sa3-s,  "The  custom  of  bathing  in  hot  water 
was  become  so  habitual  to  the  Romans  in  Pliny's  time,  that  they 
every  day  practised  it  before  they  lay  down  to  eat ;  for  which  rea- 
son in  the  city  the  public  baths  were  extremely  numerous,  in 
which,  as  Vitruvius  gives  us  to  understand,  there  were  for  each 
sex  three  rooms  for  bathing,  — one  of  cold  water,  one  of  warm,  and 
one  still  warmer.  .  .  .  The  last  thing  they  did  before  they  entered 
into  the  dining-room  was  to  bathe."  (See  also,  in  Smith's  "  Dic- 
tionar}',  arts.  "  Coena  "  and  "  Deipnon,"  and  Eschenburg's  "  Man- 
ual," third  edition,  pp.  139,  seq.,  479,  536-539,  628,  seq.)     Ac- 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  235 

cording  to  Tertullian,  bathing  was  a  daily  practice  of  the  people  in 
his  time;  for  he  says,  that,  after  receiving  baptism,  "  we  refrain 
from  the  daily  bath  for  a  whole  week  "  ("  De  Corona,"  cap.  iii.). 
On  modern  Oriental  bathing  see  Dr.  Van  Lennep's  "Bible 
Lands,"  pp.  483-496.  Speaking  of  "booths"  in  another  place, 
this  author,  referring  to  Layard  (vol.  i.  p.  116),  says  that  "  the 
Arab  is  often  driven  bj^  the  extreme  heat  to  strike  his  tent,  and 
erect  instead  a  booth  of  reeds  by  the  river-side,  where  he  tempora- 
rily adopts  ampJdbious  habits." 

But  it  is  said  that  the  figures  on  some  ancient  vases  represent 
the  bathing  as  performed  outside  of,  and  not  within,  the  bath.  To 
this  we  simply  remark,  that  ancient  bathing  was  often  a  long  and 
complicated  process  :  and  these  few  vases  may  well  represent  a  part 
of  the  process  ;  namely,  that  of  pouring  water  an  the  bathers  after 
the  use  of  the  strigils.  Hence  this  vase  representation  teUs  but  a 
small  part  of  the  story.  It  utterly  fails  to  explain  the  names,  the 
great  size,  the  whole  literature,  of  the  baths.  What  wiU  it  do  with 
the  oft-recurring  expressions,  descendere  in  balneis,  in  fontem, 
in  aquam,  egressi  de  lavacro,  and  such  like?  In  Smith's  "Dic- 
tionary "  ("  Baths  ")  it  says,  "  The  cold  bath  was  named  indiffer- 
ently natatio,  natatorium,  piscina,  baptisterium,  puteus,  loutron." 
Could  the  loutron  or  the  baptisteriitm  be  a  natatio,  or  natatorium, 
i.e.  a  swimming-bath?  and  did  people  learn  to  swim  outside  "  the 
swimming-bath"?^      "It   is  worthy  of  remark,"    says   Eschen- 

1  "  The  word  baptisterium  is  not  a  bath  sufficiently  large  to  immerse  the 
whole  body,  but  a  vessel,  or  labrum,  containing  cold  water  for  pouring  over 
the  head  "  (Smith's  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Eoman  Antiquities,  art. 
Baths).  In  confirmation  of  his  statement  tlie  writer  refers  to  Pliny's  Let- 
ters, V.  6,  and  ii.  17.  We  liave  looked  at  these  Letters ;  and  we  find  that 
Pliwfs  baptisteria  were  at  least  large  enough  to  swim  in,  and  hence,  we 
should  say,  "  sufficiently  large  to  immerse  the  whole  body  " !  Pliny,  describ- 
ing his  Tuscan  villa  to  Apollinaris,  speaks  thus  of  its  bath:  "  Inde  apody- 
terium  balinei  laxum  et  hilare  exciiDit  cella  frigidaria  in  qua  baptisterium, 
amplum  atque  opacum,  si  nature  latius  aut  tepidius  velis  in  avea,  Tpiscina,  est," 
&c.,  —  "From  thence  you  pass  through  a  spacious  and  pleasant  undressing- 
room  into  the  cold-bath  room,  in  Avhich  is  a  large  and  gloomy  bath  (baptiste- 
rium) ;  but  if  you  are  disposed  to  swim  more  at  large,  or  in  warmer  water,  in 
the  middle  of  the  area  is  a  wide  basin  for  that  purpose"  (translation  by 
William  Melmoth,  Esq.).  In  his  letter  to  Gallus,  giving  a  description  of  his 
Laurentian  villa,  Pliny  says,  "Inde  balinei  cella  frigidaria  spatiosa  et 
eifusa  cujus  in  contrariis  parietibus  duo  baptisteria,  velut  ejecta,  sinuan- 


236  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

burg's  translator  (p.  628),  "that  the  exercise  of  swimming  was 
connected  with  the  custom  of  bathing.  '  This  art,'  it  is  said, 
'  was  held  in  such  estimation  by  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  that, 
when  they  wished  to  convey  an  idea  of  the  complete  ignorance 
of  an  individual,  they  would  say  of  him,  that  he  neither  Jcneio 
how  to  read  nor  swim,  —  a  phrase  corresponding  with  our  famihar 
one,  that  a  person  knows  not  how  to  read  or  write.  Attached  to 
and  forming  a  part  of  the  gymnasia  and  palcestrce.  were  schools 
for  swimming  ;  and,  according  to  Pliny,  the  Romans  had  basins  in 
their  private  houses  for  the  enjojTnent  of  this  exercise.'  "  The 
"New  American  Cyclopaedia,"  art.  "Baths,"  gives  a  description 
of  the  public-  bath  (a  small  one)  unearthed  in  1824  at  Pompeii. 
The  natatio  (swimming  or  cold  bath)  was  nearly  thu'teen  feet  in 
diameter,  and  a  little  more  than  three  feet  in  depth.  The  labrum, 
the  vessel  which  was  used  for  pouring  or  niptoing,  (may  I  be  par- 
doned !)  and  the  one  which  is  figured  on  the  ancient  vases,  was 
eight  feet  in  diameter  (in  Eschenburg  "about  five"),  and  not 
more  than  eight  inches  in  depth.^  "  The  baths  of  Caracalla  were 
fifteen  hundred  feet  long  by  twelve  hundred  and  fifty  feet  broad  ; " 
thus  fifty-five  hundred  feet,  or  more  than  a  mile,  around.  ..."  The 
natatorium,  or  swimming-bath,  in  the  baths  of  Diocletian,  was  two 
hundred  feet  long  by  one  hundred  broad  ;  and  it  is  calculated,  that, 
in  the  whole  establishment,  more  than  eighteen  thousand  persons 
could  bathe  at  the  same  time."  The  following  brief  description 
of  the  bathing  process  is  given :  "  Previous  to  bathing,  gentle  ex- 

tur,  abunde  capacia  si  mare  in  proximo  cogites,"  &c.,  —  "From  thence  you 
enter  into  the  grand  and  spacious  cooling-room  belonging  to  the  bath,  from 
the  opposite  walls  of  which  two  round  basijis  (baptisteria)  project,  suffi- 
ciently large  to  swim  in."  This  translation  by  Melmoth  is  a  very  free  one, 
but,  in  the  main,  gives  the  sense  of  the  original.  The  abunde  capacia,  &c., 
of  the  last  sentence  of  Pliny,  literally  rendered,  would  be,  "  roomy  enough, 
if  you  bear  in  mind  that  the  sea  is  hard  by,"  that  is,  "  where  you  can  douse 
and  splash  to  your  heart's  content."  Liddell  and  Scott,  we  observe,  also 
define  baptisterion  as  a  "  swimming-bath,"  on  the  authority  of  this  same 
Pliny. 

1  That  the  labrum  was  much  smaller  than  the  piscina,  or  "fish-pool," 
may  be  seen  from  Cicero's  expression,  "  latiorem  piscinam  voluissem,"  &c. 
I  could  wish  for  the  larger  piscina,  where  there  is  plenty  of  room  to  extend 
one's  arms,  &c.  This  piscina,  in  Latin,  corresponds  with  kolumbethra,  or 
"swimming-place"  of  the  Greeks, — a  term  which  the  Greek  fathers  often 
used  for  the  baptismal  font. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  237 

ercise  was  generally  taken ;  then  it  was  recommended  that  the 
bather  should  remain  in  the  tepidariuvi,  or  warm  chamber,  for  a 
time  previous  to  undressing ;  after  undressing  ' '  (in  the  apodyte- 
rium)  "  he  proceeded  commonly  to  the  caldarium,  and,  after  sweat- 
ing some  time  in  its  heated  atmosphere,  he  either  graduall}^  im- 
mersed himself  in  the  hot- water  bath,  or  had  hot  water  simply 
poured  over  the  head  and  shoulders ;  then  cold  water  was  poured 
over  the  head,  or  the  bather  plunged  into  the  cold  piscina.  He 
was  now  scraped  with  strigils  (small  curved  instruments  made  gen- 
erally of  bronze) ,  dried  and  rubbed  with  linen  cloths,  and  finally 
anointed.  "When  one  bath  alone  was  desired,  it  was  taken  just 
before  the  principal  meal ;  but  the  luxurious  Romans  bathed  after 
as  well  as  previous  to  their  coena,  and  Commodus  is  said  to  have 
indulged  in  seven  or  eight  baths  a  day."  In  Eschenburg  (p.  140) 
it  says,  "  From  drawings  on  a  vase  found  at  Canino,  it  is  inferred 
that  the  bathers,  after  the  use  of  the  strigils,  rubbed  themselves 
with  their  hands,  and  then  were  washed  from  head  to  foot  by 
having  pails  or  vases  of  water  poured  over  them."  Thus  the 
advocates  of  immersion  and  of  pouring  can  find  warrant  for  their 
practice  in  the  customs  of  ancient  bathing.  But  how  ridiculous  to 
represent  this  ' '  pouring  "  as  "  the  common  way  of  bathing  among 
the  Greeks  "  ! 

Since,  then,  there  was  nothing  unusual  to  the  ancients  in  the 
practice  or  form  of  immersion,  there  is  no  sense  in  President 
Beecher's  tracing  the  patristic  practice  of  immersion  to  their 
"  habit  of  ascribing  peculiar  virtue  to  external  forms."  When 
baptism  with  the  fathers  became  a  grace-conferring  sacrament,  and 
the  water  became  salutaris,  or  sa^sdng,  the  mode  of  immersion  would 
naturally  rather  become  a  matter  of  minor  importance.  "  Com- 
pends,"  or  abridgments  of  baptism,  would  then  through  divine 
favor  answer  all  puiposes  in  case  of  necessity.  Dale  states  it  too 
strongly,  however,  when  he  saj's  that  "  to  the  patrists  it  made  no 
difference  how  the  water  was  used.  .  .  .  The  power  to  baptize, 
which  belonged  (in  their  view)  to  the  water,  had  no  dependence 
upon  the  manner  of  its  use."  The  fact  that  the}^  invariabl}-  prac- 
tised immersion,  except  in  case  of  mortal  sickness,  shows,  that, 
"in  their  view,"  immersion  was  essential  to  anj^  proper  baptism. 
In  their  trine  immersion  there  was,  indeed,  something  of  "  exter- 
nal form,"  which  was  unusual ;  but  they  do  not  ground  this  usage 


238  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

in  the  Scriptures,  or  in  tlie  meaning  of  the  word  itself.  And,  with- 
out ascribing  any  peculiar  virtue  to  this  "  mode  "  of  baptism,  they 
only  practised  it  professedly  in  honor  of  the  Three  Persons  in  the 
Godhead,  and  in  remembrance  of  Christ's  three-days'  burial  in  the 
tomb.  The}^  speak  of  it  as  a  tradition,  or,  in  other  words,  as  a 
human  addition  to  the  law  of  Scripture.  Even  Jerome  conceded 
that  ' '  many  things  observed  in  the  churches  by  tradition  have 
usurped  to  themselves  the  authority  of  written  law,  such  as  in  lava- 
cro  ter  caput  mergitare,  — '  to  immerse  the  head  three  times  in  the 
bath.'"  Possibly  TertulHan  also  may  refer  to  the  same  thing 
when  he  sa^^s  ("De  Corona,"  cap.  iii.),  "Dehinc  ter  mergitamur 
amplius  aliquid  respondentes  quam  Dominus  in  evangelio  deter- 
minavit ;  "  i.e.,  "Then  we  are  immersed  tJiree  times,  answering 
somewhat  more  than  the  Lord  has  appointed  in  the  gospel." 

But  when  the  word  baptizo  by  itself,  in  its  literal,  proper,  and 
usual  meaning,  "demands  intusposition,"  what  is  the  need  of 
tracing  the  practice  of  immersion  to  "  heathen"  usages  and  "  the 
habits  of  warmer  regions  "  ? 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  239 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 


INFANT-BAPTISM. 


WE  quote  here  at  the  outset  a  few  testimonies  from  those  who 
uphold  and  practise  infant-baptism,  while  they  deny  for  it 
any  express  Scripture  example  or  precept.  "  All  traces  of  infant- 
baptism  which  one  will  find  in  the  New  Testament  must  first  be 
put  into  it,"  —  "Alle  Spuren  von  Kindertaufe  die  man  in  neuen 
Testarhent  hat  finden  woUen,  erst  miissen  hineingetragen  werden  ' ' 
(Dr.  Friedrich  Schleiermacher's  "  Christian  Faith,"  vol.  ii.  p.  283). 
"  Neither  in  the  Scriptures,  nor  during  the  first  hundred  and  fifty 
years,  is  a  sure  example  of  infant-baptism  to  be  found ;  and  we 
must  concede  that  the  numerous  opposers  of  it  cannot  be  contra- 
dicted on  gospel  grounds"  (Professor  A.  Ilahn's  "  Dogmatik," 
p.  557).  "  There  is  not  a  single  example  to  be  found  in  the  New 
Testament  where  infants  were  baptized.  ...  In  household  bap- 
tisms there  was  always  reference  to  the  gospel,  as  having  beon  re- 
ceived. .  .  .  The  New  Testament  presents  just  as  good  grounds 
for  infant-communion.  .  .  .  The  connection  of  infant-baptism 
with  circumcision  deserves  no  consideration,  since  there  are  physi- 
cal reasons  which  make  circumcision  more  suitable  and  less  dan- 
gerous in  the  case  of  children  than  in  the  case  of  adults  " 
("  Geschichte  dor  Taufe  und  Taufgesinnten,"  —  "  Histor}'  of  Bap- 
tism and  the  Baptists,"  p.  10,  seg.,  by  Dr.  J.  A.  Starck,  Professor 
of  Oriental  Languages  at  Konisberg  (1769),  and  Chief  Court 
Preacher  at  Darmstadt) .  ' '  All  attempts  to  make  out  infant- 
baptism  from  the  New  Testament  fail"  (Professor  L.  Lange's 
"  Infant-Baptism,"  p.  101).  "  We  have  not,  in  fact,  a  single  sure 
proof- text  for  the  baptism  of  children  in  the  apostolic  age,  and 
the  necessit}^  of  it  cannot  be  derived  from  the  idea  of  baptism  ' ' 
(Olshausen  on  Acts  xvi.  15).     "As  baptism  was  closely  united 


240  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

with  a  conscious  entrance  on  Christian  communion,  faith  and 
baptism  were  alwa^^s  connected  with  one  another ;  and  thus  it  is 
in  the  highest  degree  probable  that  baptism  was  performed  orAj  in 
instances  where  both  could  meet  together,  and  that  the  practice 
of  infant  -  baptism  was  unknown  at  this  period"  (Neander's 
"  Planting  and  Training  of  the  Christian  Church  by  the  Apostles," 
p.  101,  Eyland's  translation).  The  following,  from  Neander's 
"  ApostoUc  Age"  (vol.  i.  p.  140),  we  quote  from  Dr.  Sears' 
article  in  vol.  iii.  of  "The  Christian  Re"vdew :  "  "Not  only  the 
late  appearance  of  any  express  mention  of  infant-baptism,  but  the 
long-continued  opposition  to  it,  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was 
not  of  apostolical  origin."  "  The  passages  from  Scripture  which 
are  thought  to  intimate  that  infant-baptism  had  come  into  use  in 
the  primitive  church  are  doubtful,  and  prove  nothing"  (Dr.  K.  R. 
Hagenbach's  "  History  of  Doctrines,"  vol.  i.  p.  210).  "In  the 
first  two  centuries  there  are  no  docmnents  that  clearly  prove  the 
existence  of  infant-baptism  at  that  time.  .  .  .  Both  Wall  and 
Bingham,  in  opposition  to  the  testimonies  of  histor}'  (invitis  liis- 
torice.  testimoniis) ,  trace  infant-baptism  back  as  far  as  to  apos- 
tolic time"  (C.  L.  Matthies'  "  Baptismatis  Expositio,"  p.  187). 
"  The  baptism  of  children  is  not  to  be  considered  as  an  apostolic 
institution,  but  arose  graduallj'  in  the  post-apostohc  age,  after 
earl}^  and  long-continued  resistance,  in  connection  with  certain 
views  of  doctrine,  and  did  not  become  general  in  the  church  till 
after  the  time  of  Augustine.  The  defence  of  infant-baptism  tran- 
scends the  domain  of  exegesis,  and  must  be  given  up  to  that  of 
dogmatics  "  (H.  A.  "W.  Meyer's  "  Commentary  on  the  New  Testa- 
ment," Acts  xvi.  15).  "The  Scripture  proofs  for  the  necessitj^ 
of  infant-baptism  are  untenable  ;  for  the  passages  (Matt.  xix.  13- 
15) ,  '  Blessing  of  little  children,'  and  (John  iii.  5) ,  '  Born  of  water 
and  the  Spii'it,'  have  no  reference  to  baptism ;  while  the  words  of 
the  commission  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19  clearly  express  the  hmit  to  its 
universality.  The  fact  that  new-born  children  were  baptized  by 
the  apostles  can  in  no  waj-  be  shown :  on  the  contrary,  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  apostles  everywhere  speak  of  baptism,  together 
with  1  Cor.  ^di.  14  and  the  narratives  of  the  oldest  church  history, 
put  it  beyond  doubt  that  infant-baptism  had  no  place  in  the  apos- 
tolic church"  (Julius  Muller).  "The  Sacred  Scriptures  fornish 
no  historical  proof  that  children  were  baptized  by  the  apostles" 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  241 

(Hofling's  "  Sakrament  der  Taufe,"  p.  99).  "The  doctrine  of 
infant-baptism  is  deduced  inferentially,  and  by  analogical  reason- 
ing, from  statements  of  Scriptm-e  applj-ing  more  expressl}'  to  the 
case  of  adult  baptism"  (William  Goode,  in  his  "Doctrine  of 
the  Church  of  England  as  to  the  Effects  of  Baptism  in  the  Case 
of  Infants").  "It  must  be  admitted  that  the  traces  of  infant- 
baptism  in  the  first  hundred  and  fifty  years  are  but  scanty,  and 
that  the  CAddence  of  the  New  Testament  is  far  from  decisive  "  (Ed- 
ward H.  Plumptre,  Professor  in  King's  College,  London) .  "  Com- 
mands, or  plain  and  certain  examples,  in  the  New  Testament, 
relative  to  it  [infant-baptism],  I  do  not  find"  (Professor  Stuart, 
"Bib.  Repos.,"  1833,  p.  385).  "Baptism,  it  is  now  generally 
agreed  among  scholars,  was  commonly  b}'  immersion.  "Whether 
infants  were  baptized  in  the  apostolic  age  ...  is  a  controverted 
question,  on  which  the  New-Testament  writings  furnish  no  direct 
information.  The  mention  of  the  baptism  of  households  is  not 
entirely  conclusive,  since  we  are  not  certain  that  infant-children 
were  contained  in  them"  ("The  Beginnings  of  Christianity^" 
p.  565,  by  George  P.  Fisher,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical 
Histor}^  in  Yale  College).  And  so  we  might  go  on,  and  fill 
page  after  page  with  concessions  such  as  these  from  Pedobaptist 
authors,  even  as  we  could  fill  a  volume  with  their  concessions 
that  baptism  primarily  and  properly  denotes  immersion,  and  that 
this  was  the  practice  of  the  ancient  church.  (See  fiu'ther,  on 
these  points,  Booth's  "  Pedobaptism  Examined,"  and  Ingham's 
works  "  On  Baptism.")  But  it  is  better  to  appeal  "to  the  law 
and  to  the  testimony."  And  here  we  would  remark,  that  if  our 
unbaptized  little  ones  are,  in  Augustine's  language,  "exposed  to 
everlasting  punishment ' '  {pcenm  sempitemce  obnoxios) ,  then  it 
would  seem  to  be  both  reasonable  and  right  that  the  duty  of  giv- 
ing them  baptism  should  not  be  left  in  the  New  Testament  a  mat- 
ter of  inference  ivholly,  as  it  confessedly  is,  but  of  the  plainest- 
possible  command.  If  our  Lord  in  His  great  commission  had 
enjoined  infant-baptism  in  the  general  phraseology  of  the  law  of 
circumcision,  and  said,  "  Every  male  (and  female)  child  through- 
out all  your  borders  shall  be  baptized  on  (or  before)  the  eighth : 
day  after  its  birth,  and  every  unbaptized  person  among  j'ou  shall 
be  cut  off  from  his  people  ;  "  or  (since  God's  "  better  "  and  more- 
merciful  (?)   covenant  of  baptism  embraces,  according  tO'  Ortho- 


242  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

dos  and  Presbyterian  pedobaptism,  not  all  the  little  children  of 
the  "nations,"  but  onl}^  the  very  few  belonging  to  "confederate 
believers")  had  He  but  added  a  single  clause  to  the  commission, 
thus,  "  Go  5^e  and  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  the  discipled  ones 
and  their  infant  seed,  .  .  .  teaching  the  adults  at  the  time  of  their 
baptism,  and  the  infants  when  they  shall  have  become  old  enough 
to  receive  instniction,  to  observe,"  &c., — this  would  have  been 
plain  enough,  and  none  too  plain.  So,  too,  if  our  Lord  had  told 
Xicodemus  that  every  one  of  our  human  race,  even  new-born  in- 
fants, as  well  as  older  persons,  must  be  baptized  and  born  of  the 
Spirit,  or  they  could  not  enter  heaven,  this,  likewise,  would  have 
made  the  dut}"  of  baptizing  infants  sufficientlj'  plain.  But,  as  it  is, 
the  New-Testament  Scriptures  are  sileni  as  the  grave  as  to  any 
intimation  of  infant  or  babe  baptism.  No  instructions  are  given 
as  to  whose  infants  are  to  be  baptized,  or  what  their  state,  or 
what  the  duties  of  baptized  children,  or  what  the  obligations  of 
their  parents  or  "  sponsors."  (See  Note  VI.,  end  of  the  volume.) 
Children  are  exhorted  to  perform  certain  duties  ;  but  never  are  they 
counselled  to  improve  their  baptism,  or  ratif}'  the  covenant  vows 
made  for  them  in  their  infantile  state.  The  duties  of  parents  are 
repeatedly  set  forth ;  but  ' '  nowhere  throughout  the  New  Testa- 
ment," as  Professor  Ripley  remarks,  "  is  baptism  even  aUuded  to 
as  a  parental  duty."  And  3'et,  if  the  want  of  baptism  debars 
our  little  ones  forever  from  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  sends  them 
into  eternal  condemnation  and  the  second  death,  this  matter, 
methinks,  should  not  have  been  passed  over  in  silence.  But,  in- 
stead of  a  silence  as  to  the  duty  of  baptizing  ' '  senseless  and  blame- 
less "  babes  (so  termed  by  Basil),  the  indications  are  all  strongly 
the  other  way.  Christian  baptism  in  the  New  Testament  is  ever}'- 
where  connected  with  discipleship,  with  teaching,  with  believing, 
with  repentance,  with  the  new  birth,  with  the  washing-away  and 
remission  of  sins,  with  the  receiving  of  the  Hoi}*  Ghost,  with  a 
death  to  self,  a  rising  with  Christ  thi'ough  faith,  a  walking  in  new- 
ness of  life,  a  putting-off  the  bod}^  of  sin,  a  putting-on  of  Christ, 
the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward  God,  and  such  like  con- 
scious, voluntar}',  and  actiA'e  states  and  conditions.  Infant-bap- 
tism reverses  all  this ;  and  the  repentance,  the  faith,  and  the 
answer  of  a  good  conscience,  which  Chiistian  baptism  requires, 
and  in  which  all  its  essence  or  saving  power  consists,  are  to  be 


•  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  243 

found,  not  at  all  in  the  cliild,  but  in  the  parent  or  sponsor,  or 
in  the  "baptizing  church."  In  the  case  of  the  baptism  of  large 
numbers,  as  in  Samaria  (Acts  viii.  12),  the  inspired  historian  says, 
that  when  they  believed  Pliilip,  preaching  the  things  concerning 
the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  name  of  Jesus,  "  the}'  were  baptized, 
both  men  and  women;"  while  no  mention  is  made  of  baptizing 
their  infant  seed,  —  an  unaccountable  omission  on  the  brephobap- 
tistic  theory.  Pedobaptist  missionaries  of  our  day  are  careful,  we 
beheve,  to  report  in  their  journals  not  onl}^  the  number  of  adults, 
but  of  infants,  they  have  had  the  privilege  of  baptizing.  Inspira- 
tion, when  describing  the  miraculous  feeding  of  the  multitudes  by 
the  Saviour,  could  speak  not  only  of  the  men  and  the  women,  but 
of  the  little  children  (paidia) ,  .who  ate  and  were  filled.  And  is  it 
not  something  strange,  that,  if  infant- children  formed  a  part  of  the 
"  multitudes  "  baptized  in  Samaria,  no  mention  is  made  of  their 
baptism,  while  that  of  ' '  men  and  women  ' '  is  explicitly'  declared  ? 
Were  there  no  young  children  or  little  ones  belonging  to  the  ' '  mul- 
titudes "  in  Samaria?  and  were  not  these  tainted  with  "  original 
sin,"  and  exposed  to  that  "condemnation"  which  "  came  upon 
all  men,"  for  the  removal  of  which  the  baptismal  "  laver  of  regen- 
eration ' '  was  provided  ?  Did  they  not  need  to  be  regenerated  and 
made  "  holy  "  or  "  saints  "  in  baptism,  or  be  baptized  because  of 
their  holiness?^     If  Philip  was  silent  on  this  important  matter, 

1  Rev.  F.  G.  Hibbard,  in  his  worlv  On  Baptism,  grounds  the  duty  of 
infant-baptism  on  the  assumed  fact  that  all  "infants  are  in  a  regenerated 
state,"  and  that  they  "  are,  whether  baptized  or  not,  in  a  state  of  grace." 
This  autlior  advocates  the  Beecher  or  purifying  idea  of  haptizo ;  tliough  we 
see  no  particular  necessity  for  purifying  infants  that  are  already  "  regener- 
ated "  and  "in  a  state  of  grace."  Dr.  Summers,  another  Metbodist  divine, 
grounds  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism  in  "  their  personal  connection  with 
the  second  Adam."  The  venerable  Dr.  Miller  would  baptize  the  children 
of  Christians,  not  because  they  are  "  children  of  the  covenant,"  and  "  fed- 
erally holy,"  and  thus  should  be  introduced  into  the  church,  but  because 
they  are  church-members  by  birth,  which  membership  is  recognized  by 
their  baptism.  The  Episcopalians,  if  one  may  judge  from  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer,  baptize  infants,  not  because  they  are  regenerated,  but  in 
order  to  regenerate  them.  F.  W.  Eobertson  regards  all  men  as  by  nature 
the  children  of  God,  whose  divine  sonship  is  publicly  recognized  and  sealed 
in  baptism.  Calvin  and  Luther  held  that  (elect)  infants  may  have  the  germ 
or  initial  principle  of  faith  as  their  qualification  for  baptism.  We  should 
prefer  to  this  the  view  of  Dr.  Waterland,  — that,  in  "  case  of  infants,  their 


244  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  • 

could  Peter  have  forgotten  to  assure  the  Samaritan  believers  that 
baptism  "  now  saves  you,"  and  that  the  promise  was  unto  them, 
and  to  their  (infant)  children?  (1  Pet.  iii.  21  ;  Acts  ii.  39.)  Could 
Jolm  possibly  have  failed  to  tell  them  that  their  infants  dj'ing  un- 
regenerated  by  the  water  of  baptism  could  never  see  the  kingdom 
of  God?  (John  iii.  5.)  Could  these  good  and  holy  men  have 
denied  these  httle  ones,  such  as  Jesus  infolded  in  His  arms  and 
blessed,  this  easy  and  j*et  all-important  baptismal  cleansing  and 
salvation?  or  could  the  inspired  Scriptures,  designed  to  be  our 
sufficient  guide,  have  omitted  the  ver}'  important  fact  of  their  bap- 
tism? "Is  it  not  remarkable,"  saj's  Carson,  p.  180,  "that  the 
Holy  Spirit  should  be  so  precise  as  to  women,  jet  not  say  a  word 
of  infants?  .  .  .  How  many  volumes  of  controversy  would  the 
addition  of  a  word  have  prevented  !  " 

An  appeal  is  sometimes  made  to  the  Sa\iour's  words,  "  Suffer 
little  children  to  come  unto  me,  .  .  .  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,"  as  warranting  or  countenancing  the  practice  of  infant- 
baptism.  But  these  children  were  brought  to  Christ  (as,  for  a  like 
purpose,  Joseph  brought  his  two  sons  to  Jacob,  Gen.  sl^dii.  9),  not 
for  baptism,  but  "that  he  might  put  his  hands  on  them  and  pray," 
and  bless  them  (Matt.  xix.  13  ;  Mark  x.  13).  "  Had  man,"  saj^s 
Dr.  Carson,  "appointed  an  ordinance  of  imposition  of  hands  on 
children  from  the  authority  of  this  passage,  it  would  not  have 
been  so  strange ;  but  to  argue  that  children  must  be  baptized 
because  thej^  may  be  blessed  by  Jesus  has  no  color  of  plausi- 

innocence  and  incapacity  are  to  them  instead  of  repentance  wMch  they  do 
not  need,  and  of  actual  faith  which  they  cannot  have,"  although  this  rule 
might  easily  be  made  to  embrace  idiots  as  proper  subjects  of  baptism. 

In  view  of  such  specimens  of  the  reasons  for  infant-baptism,  Dr.  J.  M. 
Pendleton  says,  "  How  contradictory  and  antagonistic !  It  seems  that  in- 
fants are  baptized  that  they  may  be  saved  —  that  they  may  be  regenerated 
—  because  they  have  faith  —  because  their  parents  are  believers  —  because 
they  are  involved  in  original  sin — and  because  they  are  holy  —  because  they 
ought  to  be  brought  into  the  church  —  and  because  they  are  in  the  church 
by  virtue  of  their  birth  —  and  because  of  their  '  personal  connection '  with 
Christ."  He  suggests  the  calling  of  a  general  council  to  decide  why 
infants  should  be  baptized.  But  no  decision  of  a  council  would  remove 
this  diversity  and  perplexity  of  views.  As  there  has  been  inquiry  and  dis- 
cussion among  brethren  as  to  the  grounds  of  infant-baptism  ever  since  its 
rise  (quod  frequenter  inter  fratres  quceritur,  says  Origen),  so  this  inquiry  and 
discussion  will  go  on  as  long  as  this  practice  shall  endure. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  245 

bility."  On  the  contrary,  the  natural  inference  from  our  Saviour's 
conduct  in  blessing  and  dismissing  little  children  without  baptizing 
them  would  rather  be,  that  little  children  are  not  to  be  baptized. 
Our  Saviour  does  not  bid  little  children  come  to  Him  for  baptism, 
nor  by  baptism.  He  also,  in  effect,  bids  all  little  children  to 
come,  and  not  simply  ' '  holy ' '  ones  belonging  to  pious  parents ; 
and,  when  He  speaks  of  receiving  the  kingdom  of  God  "  as  a  little 
child,"  this  last  phrase  embraces  aU  little  children,  irrespective  of 
parental  piety.  Our  Saviour,  then,  does  not  say  that  the  ' '  king- 
dom" is  composed  of  "such"  httle  children  only  as  have  been 
baptized,  but  of  little  children  as  such  (Bengel,  De  Wette,  Pres- 
sense^),  or  of  those  who  resemble   them    (Meyer),  or  of  both 

1  The  following  extract  is  from  Dr.  Hovey's  translation  of  Pressense's 
Sermon  on  Baptism :  — 

"  If  it  be  said  to  us  that  baptismal  regeneration  is  necessary  for  the  little 
child,  because  it  bears  on  its  brow  the  seal  of  the  curse,  we  reply  by  this  one 
word  of  Jesus  Christ,  '  Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid 
them  not.'  They  are  His;  for  He  has  died  for  them,  and  they  have  not  yet 
taken  part  against  Him.  He  has  the  most  tender  love  for  them ;  and  the 
compassions  of  a  father  for  his  newly-born  child  cannot  be  compared  with 
the  compassion  of  the  Saviour  for  these  frail  creatures  which  a  breath  over- 
turns. When  He  plucks  them  as  flowers  scarcely  blown,  when  He  takes 
them  away  from  ovxr  tenderness,  do  not  imagine,  that,  before  introducing 
them  into  His  heaven.  He  demands  of  them  whether  the  baptismal  water 
has  passed  over  their  brow.  Higher  than  all  the  protestations  of  a  theology 
without  bowels  resounds  the  voice  of  Jesus:  'Suffer,  suffer  them  to  come 
unto  me;  and  forbid  them  not.'  How,  then,  can  you  succeed  in  preventing 
them  ?  What  means  have  you,  sombre  theologians,  for  removing  them  from 
His  arms,  when  He  stoops  down  to  them  with  matchless  love  ?  Do  you  think 
He  will  contract  His  heart  to  the  measure  of  yours,  and  that  He  will  permit 
you,  with  your  systems,  to  say  to  His  infinite  charities,  'Thus  far  shall  ye 
come,  and  no  farther '  ?  I  would  believe  that  the  mother  could  spurn  her 
new-born  child,  before  believing  that  Jesus  Christ  could  reject  little  chil- 
dren. Hrs  benediction  rests  on  every  cradle;  and  those  whom  He  draws  on 
high  with  a  smile  are  blessed,  though  they  have  not  received  baptism.  It  is 
in  His  arms  that  we  love  to  place  them  when  He  calls  them  back  from  us ; 
it  is  there  that  we  will  seek  them.  The  God  who  could  spurn  them  could 
not  be  our  God;  for  He  would  not  be  justice  and  love.  No:  neither  the 
justice  nor  the  love  of  God  permits  the  condemnation  of  a  little  child.  We 
recognize  in  him  the  marks  of  the  forfeiture ;  we  discover,  amid  the  naive 
grace  which  enchants  us,  the  fatal  germ  of  sin.  He  is  heir  of  a  race  rebel- 
lious and  condemned ;  but  so  long  as  he  is  in  this  state  of  ignorance,  so  long 
as  he  has  not  ratified  the  evil  by  a  voluntary  act,  he  is  not  responsible 
before  God,  and  involuntary  sin  is  removed  by  the  aid  of  salvation  not  yet 
received." 


246  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

classes,  "  tarn  parvulos  quam  eoriim  similes  "  (Cahin) .  The  refer- 
ence here,  we  think  (favorecl  as  it  is  hj  the  use  of  toiouton,  "  such," 
and  not  toutbn,  "them"),  is  chiefl}'  to  those  who  resemble  little 
children  ;  to  those  who  are  childlike  in  spirit,  unassuming,  artless, 
humble,  teachable  (Matt,  x^iii.  3-6)  :  and  hence  Christ  speaks  of 
His  disciples  as  "  little  ones  that  believe  in  Him,"  and  as  "infants," 
in  contrast  with  the  worldl}'  ' '  wise  and  prudent ; ' '  and  Peter  com- 
pares them  to  "new-born  babes,"  &c.  "  j^s  on  qui  setate,"  says 
Matthies,  "  sed  qui  mente  tamquam  pamilus  est,  regnum  ingredi- 
tur  coeleste ;  itaque,  ex  ejusmodi  Christi  dictis  psedobaptismi 
necessitas  neutiquam  potest  probari."  Our  Lord  does  not,  per- 
haps, j)ronounce  here  upon  the  moral  state  of  little  children,  nor 
upon  their  relation  to  His  kingdom  above,  but  b}"  implication  ;  for 
it  would  seem,  that,  if  the  heavenlj^  kingdom  is  composed  of  such 
as  resemble  them,  they  themselves,  if  dying  in  infancy,  could 
hardty  be  excluded  from  that  kingdom.  Through  the  power  of 
Christ's  redemption  they  maj^  become  fitted  for  His  society'  in 
heaven,  though  incapable  of  the  duties  of  church-membership  on 
earth.  Man}'  writers,  however,  regard  this  "  kingdom  "  as  sj'non}-- 
mous  with  the  Church  of  Christ.  Albert  Barnes  says,  "The 
kingdom  of  heaven  evidently  means  here  the  CliurcJi.  (See  Matt. 
iii.  2.)  In  Mark  and  Luke  it  is  said  He  immediately  added,  '  Who- 
soever shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  httle  child  shall 
not  enter  therein.'  "Whosoever  shall  not  be  humble,  unambitious, 
and  docile,  shall  not  be  a  true  follower  of  Christ,  or  a  member  of 
his  kingdom.  '  Of  such '  — that  is,  of  persons  with  such  tempers 
as  these  —  is  the  Church  to  be  composed.  Pie  does  not  sa^',  of 
these  infants,  but  of  such  persons  as  resemhled  them,  or  were  like 
them  in  temper,  was  the  kingdom  of  heaven  made  up."  But 
whatever  was  the  age,  character,  or  parentage  of  the  little  chil- 
dren that  were  brought  to  Chiist,  or  however  clear  their  title  to 
entrance  within  the  heavenly  kingdom,  it  is  certain  that  our 
Saviour  neither  baptized  them,  nor  counselled  their  baptism,  but 
allowed  them  to  depart  unbaptized,  though  not  unblessed ;  and 
we  trust  that  oui'  Lord,  in  thus  denj-ing  them  baptism,  did  not,  as 
Dale  says  our  "  theory"  does,  exclude  them  fi'om  the  kingdom  of 
God. 

Dr.  Dale,  as  others  have  done,  refers,  in  support  of  his  ^aew,  to 
Peter's  utterance  on  the  day  of  Pentecost :   "  The  promise  is  given 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  247 

to  you  and' 3^our  children,"  &c.  But  this  "promise"  has  refer- 
ence to  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  vSpirit,  in  which  unconscious 
infants  could  not  participate;  and  the  phrase,  "your  children," 
corresponding  in  Joel  to  ' '  your  sons  and  your  daughters  shall 
prophesy,"  has  no  express  reference  to  infants,  but  to  one's 
descendants  generally.  Dr.  Hammond,  "a  strong  asserter  of 
pedobaptism,"  pertinently  remarks  of  "  some  men,  whenever  they 
meet  with  the  word  children,  it  immediately  runs  in  their  heads 
that  infants  must  be  meant."  "We  cannot  believe  that  any  man 
in  his  senses  would  ventm-e  to  assert,  that,  in  this  great  Pente- 
costal revival,  unconscious  infants  "  gladl}^  received  the  apostle's 
word,  and  were  baptized."  Most  evidently  the  baptism  which 
the  apostle  Peter  preached,  and  which  was  received  on  this  occa- 
sion, did  not  differ  in  character  from  that  baptism  of  which  he 
afterwards  wrote  (1  Pet.  iii.  21), — a  baptism  which  required  in 
its  subjects  the  possession  not  only  of  a  good  understanding,  but 
of  a  "  good  conscience." 

Many  Pedobaptists  have  inferred  the  duty  of  baptizing  infant 
children  of  pious  parentage  from  the  asserted  holiness  of  such 
children  by  Paul,  in  1  Cor.  vii.  14  :  "  The  unbeheviug  husband  is 
sanctified,  or  made  hol}^,  by  [in]  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving 
wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband  :  else  your  children  are  unclean  ; 
but  now  are  the}^  hoi}'."  Augustine  and  most  of  the  fathers  held 
that  these  children  were  sanctified,  or  made  "  holy  "  or  "  saints," 
by  and  in  baptism,  and  not  (as  most  modern  Pedobaptists  do) 
that  thej'  were  baptized  because  of  their  holiness,  or  their  right  to 
church-membership  by  \drtue  of  pious  parentage.  On  the  other 
hand,  Olshausen,  De  Wette,  Meyer,  and  others  regard  this  pas- 
sage as  conclusive  evidence  that  infants  were  not  baptized  in  the 
church  of  Corinth.  For  Paul  could  not  well  reason  from  the  case 
of  a  baptized  child  to  that  of  an  unbaptized,  unbehe^'ing,  heathen 
parent ;  and,  if  the  children  had  been  baptized  by  reason  of  their 
holiness  (arising  from  their  connection  with  pious  parentage) ,  this 
fact  would  certainly  have  been  referred  to.  Augustine,  we  know, 
regarded  the  word  "  sanctified  "  as  equivalent  to  "  baptized,"  and 
supposes  that  ' '  some  wives  had  been  brought  to  the  faith  b}'  their 
beheving  husbands,  and  husbands  b}'  their  belie-^-ing  wives."  But 
the  apostle  does  not  say,  with  Dr.  Wall  (who  here  follows  Augus- 
tine), "You   commonly  see   the   unbelieving  part}-  sanctified,  or 


248  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM, 

brought  to  faith  and  baptism,  by  the  believing  one  ;  "  but  he  speaks 
of  it  as  an  invariable  iTile,  that  the  unbelieving  partner  is  sanctified 
in  the  believing  one.  And  he  also  declares  the  unbelieving  and 
unbaptized  companion  to  be  "  sanctified,"  and  to  be  as  "holy,'* 
by  virtue  of  connection  with  a  pious  consort,  as  are  the  unbaptized 
and  unregenerate  children  b}'  virtue  of  their  pious  parentage  ;  and 
thus  the  "  sanctified,"  though  unbelieving,  heathen  and  idolatrous 
parent  is  as  much  entitled  to  baptism  (justly  so,  on  Dale's  view, 
as  we  shall  see)  as  are  the  "holy,"  though  unregenerate,  unbe- 
lieving children.  The  truth  is,  the  hoUness  or  sanctiflcation  has 
no  reference  whatever  to  moral  purity.  Thus  Paul,  in  1  Tim. 
iv.  5,  speaks  of  every  kind  of  food  created  of  God  as  good,  and 
nothing  to  be  refused  as  unclean,  if  it  be  received  with  thanksgiv- 
ing ;  for  it  is  ' '  sanctified ' '  by  the  word  of  God  and  praj'er.  You 
concede  (thus  reasons  Paul  with  his  Corinthian  brethren  ;  and  the 
reasoning  holds  good  in  part,  whether  one  parent  only  is  supposed 
to  be  a  behever,  or  both  parents  are  regarded  as  Christians)  that 
your  unbaptized,  unconverted  children  are  not  unclean.  You  live 
with  them,  nurture  them,  and  love  them,  and  3'ou  do  not  regard 
their  touch  as  defiling :  in  like  manner  should  believing  husbands 
or  wives  live  with,  love,  and  cherish  their  unbelieving  and  unbap- 
tized consorts.  This,  substantial^,  is  the  view  of  Olshausen,  De 
"Wette,  and  Mej'er,  aU  of  whom  regard  this  passage  as  having 
reference  to  children  of  Christian  parents  generally.  Matthies, 
on  the  contrary,  though  denying  that  infants  were  baptized  in  the 
apostolic  age,  jQi  sees  in  this  passage  a  reference  to  the  children 
of  mixed  marriages  only,  and  makes  Paul  advise  the  believing 
parents  of  such  children  to  regard  their  unbelieving  consorts 
as  sanctified,  i.e.,  hoty,  though  unbaptized,  even  as  they  regard 
their  children,  born  of  such  unbelieving  consorts,  as  holy,  i.e., 
sanctified,  though  not  baptized  (see  his  "Baptis.  Expos.,"  §  18, 
p.  143).  Paul,  the  great  apostle  "  of  justifying  faith  and  evan- 
gelical freedom  "  (S chaff),  the  uncompromising  foe  of  all  merely 
outward  and  empty  formalism  in  religious  concernments,  and  more 
especially  of  ever}^  thing  which  had  the  idea  or  look  of  a  mere 
opus  operatum  efficacy,  who  asserted  of  himself  that  he  had  ' '  no 
confidence  in  the  flesh,"  or  fleshly  outward  ordinances,  did  not 
and  could  not  counsel  the  Corinthian  believers  to  bring  to  bap- 
tism their  unconscious,  unbelieving  infants,  though  deemed  not 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  249 

"unclean,"  but  "holy,"  any  more  than  he  could  counsel  the 
"sanctified"  or  holy  consort,  though  a  heathen,  and  idolatrous 
unbeliever,  to  be  baptized.  ' '  Just  as  with  the  childi-en  nothing  but 
the  special  connection  with  Christians  (their  parents)  is  the  sanc- 
tifj'ing  means,  so  also  must  the  same  connection  in  the  mixed 
marriage"  (the  connection  with  a  Chiistian  consort)  "have  the 
same  influence.  Had  infant-baptism  at  that  time  ah-eady  existed, 
Paul  could  not  have  drawn  such  a  conclusion,  because  the  hoUness 
of  the  children  of  Christians  would  then  have  had  another  gi-ound ' ' 
("  Meyer's  Commentary  "  on  1  Cor.  vii.  14).  Similar  is  the  lan- 
guage of  De  Wette :  ' '  The  children  of  Christians  were  not  yet 
received  properly  into  a  Christian  community,  were  not  j'et  bap- 
tized, and  did  not  take  part  in  the  devotional  exercises  and  love- 
feasts  of  the  church :  accordingly^,  they  might  have  been  regarded 
as  unclean  with  as  much  reason  as  the  unbelieving  consorts  could 
be  so  regarded.  In  this  passage,  therefore,  we  have  a  proof 
that  children  had  not  begun  to  be  baptized  in  the  time  of  the 
apostles."  "The  'holiness'  of  Christian  children,"  says  Pro- 
fessor Plumptre,  in  Smith's  "  Christian  Antiquities,"  art.  "Chil- 
dren," "  is  made  to  depend,  in  1  Cor,  vii.  14,  not  on  baptism,  but 
on  the  faith  of  one,  at  least,  of  the  parents." 

It  is  but  justice  to  Dr.  Dale  to  say  that  he  does  not  adduce  this 
passage  just  considered  in  proof  of  the  propriety  or  dut}'^  of  infant- 
baptism  (though  why  he  has  not  done  so  we  cannot  imagine)  ;  nor 
does  he,  as  many  others,  base  the  duty  of  giving  baptism  to 
infants  on  the  ground  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant  and  the  rite  of 
circumcision.  Indeed,  what  the  Augustines  and  Calvins  of  a 
former  age,  and  the  Hodges  of  the  present  day,  chiefl}^  rely  upon 
for  support  of  infant-baptism,  he  makes  no  reference  to  whatever. 
We  have  no  idea,  however,  that  he  would  take  his  stand  on  Dr. 
Emmons'  ground,  and  maintain  with  him  that  the  ordinances  of 
the  gospel  should  be  ascertained  from  the  gospel  itself.  Perhaps 
he,  like  many  others,  does  not  clearly  see  the  substantial  identity 
existing  between  Jewish  circumcision  and  Christian  baptism.  Car- 
son, while  serving  in  the  Presbyterian  ministry,  sought  from  these 
two  sources  to  make  out  a  consistent  scheme,  but  failed  in  the 
attempt.  He  had  a  prettj'  clear  mind  ;  but  he  virtually  confesses 
that  he  could  not  full}-  comprehend  that  matter,  and  intimates  that 
a  good  man}'' others,  even  Pedobaptist  authors,  "who  have  been 


250  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

all  their  lives  engaged  in  the  study  of  it,"  were  in  the  same  pre- 
dicament. He  says,  "When  the  most  ilKterate  heathen  or  the 
most  ignorant  savage  believes  the  gospel,  five  minutes  will  be 
enough  to  prove  to  him  the  duty  of  being  baptized  as  a  believer  ; 
but,  if  he  has  children,  when  will  he  be  able  to  baptize  them  by  his 
knowledge  of  the  covenant  of  Abraham  ?  ' '  We  should  pity  the 
man,  even  if  not  illiterate,  who  would  have  to  wade  through,  with 
the  endeavor  to  understand,  all  the  ponderous  treatises  which 
good  and  learned  Christians  have  written  on  this  subject,  before  he 
could  clearly  ascertain  his  duty  in  this  matter.  God's  covenant 
with  Abraham  (see  Gen,  xvii.),  to  give  him  a  numerous  ofispring, 
to  make  him  a  father  of  kings  and  of  manj^  nations,  and  to  give  to 
his  seed  the  land  of  Canaan  for  an  everlasting  possession,  and  to 
be  a  God  to  him  and  to  his  seed  after  him,  is  plain  enough.  And 
.the  law  of  circumcision,  the  token  of  the  covenant,  is  plain 
enough:  "Every  male  child  among  3'ou  that  is  eight  days  old, 
whether  he  be  born  in  the  house,  or  bought  with  money  of  (or 
even)  any  stranger  who  is  not  of  thy  seed,  shall  be  circumcised ; 
and  every  uncu'cumcisecj  male  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people." 
And  what  Paul  says  in  Rom.  iv.  11,  that  circumcision  was  a  seal 
of  the  righteousness  of  Abraham' s  faith,  "  the  faith  which  he 
had  being  3'et  uncircumcised,"  is  also  plain  enough.  But  to  see 
how  a  rite  compulsoril}'  performed  on  all  the  natural  seed,  or 
rather  on  all  the  infant  male  descendants,  of  Abraham,  on  all  hig 
male  servants,  and  on  all  of  every  nation  who  would  join  the 
Jewish  body  politic  or  commonwealth,  is  substantial^  identical 
with  the  initiatory  ordinance  of  Christ's  spiritual  bod}",  the  church, 
composed  professedly'  of  renewed  and  penitent  believers  ' '  sancti- 
fied in  Christ  Jesus,  called  to  be  saints,"  —  this  is  difficult  indeed. 
Place  the  law  of  circumcision  as  above  given  alongside  of  the 
law  of  Christian  baptism,  truly  a  law  of  liberty,  involving  con- 
scious duty  and  voluntary  obedience:  "Go,  make  disciples, 
baptizing  them,  and  teaching  them."  "  He  that  believe th  and 
is  baptized  shall  be  saved."  "  Repent  and  be  baptized,  every 
one  of  you.  .  .  .  They,  therefore,  having  received  Peter's  word, 
were  baptized."  "And  when  thej'  believed  Phihp  .  .  .  they 
were  baptized,  both  men  and  women."  "See!  water!  What 
doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized?"  "And  now  wh}'  tarriest 
thou?     Arise,   be  baptized,  and  wash  away  th}'  sins,  calhng  on 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  251 

His  name."  "Can  anyone  forbid  the  water  [of  baptism]  that 
these  should  not  be  baptized  who  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as 
well  as  we?  "  "  And  when  they  heard  this  they  were  baptized," 
&c.  How  utterly  different  in  spirit  is  the  law  of  baptism  from  that 
of  circumcision  !  And  not  less  different  are  the  things  which  are 
signified  by  these  rites.  Circumcision  is  indeed  once  called  a  seal 
of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith :  but  this  faith  was  Abraham's, 
and  while  he  was  in  uncircumcision ;  and  it  is  never  spoken  of  as 
a  seal  of  any  other  person's  faith  or  faith-righteousness.  Nowhere 
in  the  Scriptures  is  it  spoken  of  as  a  grace-conferring,  saving 
ordinance,  or  as  an  ecclesiastical  rite,  the  "  door  "  into  the  Jewish 
church,  or  even  as  a  parental  "dedication"  of  one's  infant  off- 
spring to  Jehovah.  The  first-born  males  alone  were  dedicated  to 
Jehovah,  3'et  not  by  the  rite  of  circumcision.  The  Jewish  infants 
were  not  circumcised  "  unto  the  name  "  of  the  God  of  Israel ;  nor 
were  the  sacred  priests  commissioned  to  perform  the  rite  (which 
for  ^^ physical  reasons,"  as  Dr.  Starck  remarks,  was  performed  in 
infancy) ,  nor  in  any  wa}^  to  confer  on  it  a  special  rehgious  sanctity. 
Of  course  the  exhortation,  "  Repent  and  be  circumcised,  every  one 
of  you,"  was  never  spoken  in  Israel,  or,  if  it  had  been,  unconscious 
babes  would  not  have  been  expected  or  required  to  obey.  No 
' '  sponsors , "  or  "  godfathers  "  and  "  godmothers , ' '  were  ever 
present  at  an  infant's  circumcision  to  profess  for  the  httle  one  that 
he  had  believed  in  God,  had  repented  of  his  sins,  had  renounced 
the  world,  the  devil  and  his  pomps,  and  had  turned  to  God,  and 
would  no  longer  ' '  follow  or  be  led  by  the.  sinful  desires  of  the 
flesh."  Nor  was  the  young  babe's  circumcision  (which,  unlil^e 
infant-baptism,  left  a  permanent  mark  upon  one's  person  ;  so  that 
there  was  no  need  for  others  to  inform  him  in  after-life  that  he  had 
been  circumcised-^)  deemed  so  incomplete  that  a  rite  of  "  confirma- 
tion" was  invented,  whereby  the  circumcised  one,  having  arrived 
to  3'ears  of  understanding,  could  renew  and  ratif}^  for  himself  the 
vows  made  for  him  by  others  at  the  time  of  his  circumcision. 
And  though  the  rite  has  had  a  spiritual  import  assigned  to  it,  and 


1  When  Dr.  Pusey  speaks  of  "  our  baptismal  morn,  an  oasis,  it  may  be, 
in  a  wilderness,  but  a  spot  on  which  our  memory  may  without  misgiving 
repose,"  &c.,  does  he  not  draw  somewhat  on  his  imagination  for  alleged 
facts  ? 


252  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

though,  as  the  token  of  the  covenant,  it  was  doubtless  attended 
with  obligation,  yet,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  had  nothing  to  do 
directly  with  any  person's  faith,  piety,  or  general  character.  It 
was  a  fleshly  ordinance  ;  and,  for  the  Jews,  its  only  indispensable 
prerequisite  was  flesJi  inherited  from  Abraham.  Its  subjects  were 
born  of  blood  and  of  the  will  of  the  flesh.  It  involved  no  person- 
al possession,  profession,  or  promise  of  piety ;  it  .conferred  no 
personal  character ;  it  expressed  no  personal  character  ;  it  did  not 
constitute  the  Jew  a  true  child  of  Abraham.  The  ' '  token  of  the 
covenant ' '  was  borne  by  aU.  the  male  population  of  the  Jewish 
nation,  and,  of  course,  not  onl}-  by  individuals  eminent  for  piet}', 
but  for  wickedness.  It  was  borne  not  only  by  individual  trans- 
gressors, but  hj  whole  classes,  communities,  and  generations  of 
disobedient,  rebellious,  and  idolatrous  men ;  by  those  whom  John 
upbraided  as  a  "brood  of  vipers ;  "  by  the  scribes,  Pharisees, 
and  unbelieving  Jews  whom  our  Saviour  denounced  as  "sons  of 
the  devil;"  by  the  betrayers  and  murderers  of  Christ;  and  by 
those,  who,  after  the  rejection  of  Christ,  continued  "  to  fill  up  their 
sins  alwa}'."  Yet  all  these  were  "  children  of  the  covenant,"  and 
sealed  with  its  seal,  and  were,  during  their  whole  hves,  members 
of  the  Jewish  national  church.  Was,  now,  the  national  theocracy 
of  the  Jews  designed  to  be  a  pattern  of  the  Christian  Church  ?  We 
trow  not.  Yet  this  is  what  the  Judaizing  teachers  of  our  time 
affirm,  who  hold  that  the  Abrahamic  circumcision-covenant  "  is  the 
same  covenant  of  grace,  for  substance,  with  that  which  subsists 
under  the  gospel-administration,"  and  has  not  been  supplanted  by 
a  "  new  "  and  a  "  better."  How  man}-  of  the  promises  made  by 
God  to  Abraham  under  that  special  covenant  do  such  persons,  or 
do  we  ourselves  as  Chiistian  believers,  now  claim?  And  here  we 
may  properly  inquire  what  are  the  pecuUar  promises  which  God 
made  to  Abraham,  and  which  are  tied  to  the  Abrahamic  covenant 
or  covenants.  And,  first,  did  God,  according  to  Scripture  teach- 
ing, make  more  than  one  covenant  with  Abraham?  We  know  that 
Paul  not  only  speaks  of  "covenants"  and  "promises,"  but  of 
the  "  covenants  of  the  promise,"  as  appertaining  to  the  Israehtes. 
We  know  also  that  Peter,  in  Acts  iii.  25,  saj's,  "  Ye  are  the  sons 
...  of  the  covenant  which  God  made  with  our  fathers,  saj-ing 
to  Abraham,  And  in  thj^  seed  shall  all  nations  of  the  earth  be 
blessed"   (see  Gen.  xii.  3,  xxii.   18).     This  great  and  special 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  253 

promise,  which,  on  the  authority  of  Peter,  we  may  term  the  Jirst 
Abrahamic  covenant,  was  first  made  to  Abraham,  in  the  land  of 
the  Chaldees,  while  "in  uncircumcision,"  and  over  a  score  of 
years  before  the  covenant  and  rite  of  circumcision  were  given. 
Christian  believers  are,  of  course,  greatly  interested  in  this  prom- 
ise, which  was  indeed  the  "  gospel  preached  before  unto  Abraham  " 
(Gal.  iii.  8) ,  and  which  is  substantially  identical  with  the  gospel 
or  "  new  "  covenant.  And  yet  has  God  covenanted  with  each 
Christian  believer  to  give  him  a  "  seed,"  a  numerous  offspring,  as 
the  "  stars  of  heaven  "  and  as  the  "  dust  of  the  earth"  for  mul- 
titude ;  to  make  his  ' '  name  great ;  "  to  make  of  him  ' '  a  great 
nation ;  "  and  that  from  him  shall  come  the  Messiah,  in  whom  "  all 
the  families  of  the  earth  shall  be  blessed  "  ?  The  next,  or  second, 
specified  covenant  with  Abraham,  is  recorded  in  Gen.  xv.  18  (com- 
pare xii.  7,  xiii.  15),  and  specially  promises  to  Abraham  and  his 
seed  the  land  of  Canaan  and  its  bordering  countries  for  an  ever- 
lasting possession.  This  is  the  "  covenant  before  confirmed  by 
God,"  which,  by  its  wording  in  the  Seventy  (Gen.  xiii.  15;  so 
xvii.  8,  but  not  x-vii.  7) ,  furnishes  Paul's  quotation  in  Gal.  iii,  16, — 
"And  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ"  (thus  not  the  infant  seed 
of  believers)  ;  which  covenant,  as  Paul  sa^'s,  "  the  law,  which  came 
four  hundred  and  thirty-  years  after,  does  not  annul  to  make  the 
promise  (of  "  inheritance  ")  of  no  effect."  ^  We  hardlj^  need  ask 
whether  this  promise  of  the  earthly  Canaan  for  an  everlasting  in- 
heritance belongs  now  to  the  Christian  believer.  While,  however, 
we  must  answer  this  in  the  negative,  we  do  not  deny  that  there  is 
a  sense  in  which  those  who  are  "  Christ's,"  and  thus  "Abraham's 
seed"  (Gal.  iii.  29),  are,  with  Abraham,  not  only  heirs  "of  the 
world"  (Rom.  iv.  13),  but  "heirs,  according  to  the  promise," 
of  God's  heavenly  Canaan  and  His  everlasting  kingdom.  The 
tJiird  covenant  with  Abraham,  recorded  first  in  Gen.  x\ii.  10,  is 


1  On  this  "  seed "  of  Abraham,  Ellicott  thus  remarks:  "  Here,  in  its  mys- 
tical meaning,  it  denotes  not  merely  the  spiritual  posterity  of  Abraham,  but 
Him  in  whom  that  posterity  is  all  organically  united,  —  the  pleroma,  the 
kephale,  even  Christ"  (Gal.  iii.  16).  And  on  verse  18  he  says,  "  '  The  inher- 
itance,' here  used  by  the  apostle,  in  its  higher  meaning,  to  denote  that  in- 
heritance of  the  blessings  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom  —  the  inheritance  of 
the  heavenly  Canaan  —  Avhich  M'as  typified  by  the  lower  and  primary  mean- 
ing, the  inheritance  of  the  earthly  Canaan." 


254  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

that  which,  hy  Stephen  (Acts  vii.  8),  is  called  "the  covenant  of 
circumcision."  This  is  that  which  is  commonly  called  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant,  and  which,  by  manj''  persons,  is  supposed  to 
embrace  all  the  promises  which  God  previously  made  to  Abraham 
in  the  course  of  some  thirtj"  j'ears.  We  leave  our  readers  to 
decide  for  themselves  this  matter.  The  peculiar  promises  attached 
to  this  covenant  seem  to  be,  that  God,  in  making  "  Abram  "  to 
become  "Abraham,"  would  make  him  to  be  the  "father,"  not 
only  of  a  great  nation,  but  of  '■'■many  nations,"  as  also  a  father 
of  "  kings  ; "  and  that  He  would  be  "a  God  "  in  a  special  sense 
to  him,  and  of  his  seed  after  him.  How  man}'  of  these  promises 
do  humble  Christians  now  appropriate  to  themselves?  Man}' 
Christian  professors,  we  know,  by  interpolating  the  word  "  infant  " 
before  "  seed  "  in  the  last-mentioned  promise,  think  thus  to  claim 
it,  in  substance,  for  themselves  and  their  infant  offspring  (if  they 
have  an}'),  and  find  in  it  a  warrant  for  the  baptism  of  their 
(infant)  seed,  even  as  circumcision  was  given  to  the  (male)  infant 
seed  of  Abraham,  and  of  his  descendants  through  Isaac  and 
Jacob.  This  indeed  might  and  would  be  the  Christian's  duty  and 
privilege,  had  God  so  willed  and  ordered  it  in  His  Word.  Me- 
thinks,  however,  even  this  one  promise  which  they  cling  to,  that 
Jehovah  would  be  the  God  of  Abraham  and  of  his  seed  (Gen. 
xvii.  7) ,  as  that  promise  has  been  verified  in  Jewish  history,  is  not 
all  that  Christian  believers  now  wish  for  and  claim.  The  Jews  were, 
indeed,  adopted  as  God's  peculiar  people  ;  but  this  adoption  was 
national,  rather  than  individual  and  spuitual  (see,  in  "  Baptist 
Quarter^  "  for  July,  1871,  "  The  Abrahamic  Covenants,"  by  Rev. 
T.  E,.  Palmer).  The  Rev.  T.  T.  Perowne  (Episcopalian)  con- 
cedes that  '^  circumcision  was  made  a  necessary  condition  of 
Jewish  nationahty."  If  this  be  the  state  of  the  case,  how  can  a 
Christian  be  satisfied  to  regard  the  ' '  covenant  of  circumcision ' ' 
as  the  ' '  covenant  of  grace  "  ?  In  a  far  higher  sense  than  this 
ma}^  we,  if  we  are  "  of  Christ,"  the  "  Son  of  God,"  and  "  son  of 
Abraham,"  and  thus  the  true  spiritual  children  of  Abraham,  the 
"  father  of  believers,"  humbly  claim  Jehovah  to  be  our  God  and 
Father,  and  the  God  and  Father  of  our  "  seed"  after  us.  But, 
under  the  gospel  dispensation,  even  the  "seed"  of  believers, 
whether  Gentile  or  Jew,  must  be  actuall}'  partakers  of  the  "faith 
of  Abraham ;  "  must,  b}'  the  new  birth,  and  by  personal  consecra- 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  255 

tion  to  Chi'ist,  become  spiritually  related  to  Christ,  and  thus  "  sons 
of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus,"  —  before  they  can  properl}*  be 
called  the  sons,  or  the  seed,  of  Abraham,  and,  as  "heirs  accord- 
ing to  the  promise,"  be  entitled  to  the  "seal"  of  the  Christian 
covenant. 

In  view,  thus,  of  what  we  deem  Scripture  representation,  we 
feel  ourselves  obliged  to  distinguish  between  the  gospel  covenant 
or  promise,  which  was  announced  beforehand  to  Abraham,  that  in 
him  and  in  his  seed  ("which  is  Christ")  "shall  all  nations  of 
the  earth  be  blessed,"  and  the  subsequent  "  covenant  of  circumcis- 
ion," first  made  with  Abraham,  but,  centuries  after,  renewed  and 
confirmed  by  Moses  and  the  Children  of  Israel,  and  which  is  so  far 
identical  with  the  legal  Sinaitic  covenant,  that  the  "  circumcised," 
as  Paul  declares,  "  are  debtors  to  do  the  whole  law ;  "  and  "  cir- 
cumcision," and  the  "  law  of  Moses,"  the  "  custom  of  Moses," 
and  the  "  Jews'  religion,"  are  used  as  convertible  terms.  Yet  the 
Hodges  of  our  daj'  tell  us  that  the  ' '  visible  church  is  identical 
under  both  dispensations."  ^     If  this  be  so,  then  it  follows  that  at 

1  Some  Pedobaptist  writers  —  by  making  the  "good  olive-tree"  (from 
which,  according  to  Paul  in  Rom.  xi.  17-24,  some  "  natural  branches,"  i.e., 
unbelieving  Jews,  were  broken  off,  and  into  which  the  believing  Gentiles 
were  grafted)  synonymous  with  the  Mosaic  national  theocracy,  or  political 
"commonwealth  of  Israel "  —  think  thus  to  prove  the  sameness  of  the  Jew- 
ish and  Christian  Church.  But  this  would  amount  only  to  a  Judaizing  of 
Christianity,  and  would  make  Paul's  aim  to  be  simply  to  proselyte  the  Gen- 
tiles, or  make  the  Gentile  converts  to  become  virtually  Judaizing  Christians. 
But  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  had  a  different  estimate  of  .Judaism  from 
this,  and  a  far  different  view  of  the  Christian  scheme.  Yet  Paul,  for  cer- 
tain, recognized  a  true  church,  or  people  of  God,  loitldn  the  Jewish  nation, 
consisting  of  those  who  were  "Jews  inwardly;"  who  were  "not  only  of 
the  circumcision,  but  who  also  walked  in  the  steps  of  the  faith  of  our 
father  Abraham;"  who  were  "of  faith,"  and  thus  the  true  "sons,"  or 
spiritual  seed  of  Abraham.  "  For  not  all  they  are  Israel  who  are  of  Israel; 
neither,  because  they  are  the  seed  of  Abraham,  are  they  all  children." 
"  The  physical  Israel,"  as  Olshausen  remarks,  "  had  ceased  to  be  the  true 
Israel,"  and  became  merely  "  Israel  after  the  flesh; "  yet  there  was  "  a  rem- 
nant according  to  the  election  of  grace."  In  some  sense  the  physical  Israel 
belonged  to  the  "good  olive-tree,"  or  the  true  church,  even  as  fruitless 
branches  are  said  ( John  xv.  2)  to  be  "in"  Christ,  "the  true  vine."  The 
connection  in  either  case  was  simply  outward  and  nominal,  not  real  and 
vital ;  yet  it  was  sufficient  to  justify  Pavil  in  speaking  of  a  breaking-off,  and 
Christ  of  a  takincj-away,  of  fruitless  branches. 


256  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

least  all  the  male  inhabitants  of  our  land  should  be  deemed  church- 
members,  and  should  be  recognized  as  such  b}^  the  "  seal  "  of 
baptism.  Surely  our  American  people  are  as  truty  "  sanctified" 
to  the  Lord,  and  as  justly  entitled  to  the  name  of  "believers,"  as 
were  the  Jews.  And  if  all  the  Jews  were  born  "  of  the  will  of 
the  flesh,  and  of  the  will  of  man,"  into  church-membership,  or 
were,  by  virtue  of  fleshly  birth,  entitled  to  church-membership 
and  the  "  seal  of  the  covenant,"  shall  any  selfishness  of  ours 
exclude  one  of  our  whole  people  from  the  visible  church  of  Christ  ? 
Nay,  if  the  Abrahamic  circumcision-covenant  and  the  gospel-cove- 
nant are  identical,  as  is  \erj  ingeniously  maintained  by  Rev.  Peter 
Clark  of  Salem  (A.D.  1752)  in  his  Reply  to  Dr.  John  GiU ;  and  if 
the  Christian  Church  be  but  an  extension  of  the  Jewish,  embracing 
all  nations  instead  of  one;  and  the  "  covenant  of  circumcision" 
be  now  in  force  throughout  the  Christian  world,  its  "  token  "  only 
being  changed  in  form,  and  applied,  not  now  to  the  male  infant  of 
eight  days,  but  to  both  sexes,  and  as  soon  as  maj^  be  after  birth, 
even  within  the  second  or  third  daj^,  as  Cj'prian  and  his  sixtj'-six 
confreres  in  council  would  have  it,  rather  than  on  the  eighth,  "that 
no  soul  be  lost,"  — then,  methinlcs,  our  National  Congress,  at  the 
very  start,  and  every  other  National  Government  which  pretends  to 
be  Christian,  should  have  enacted  a  law,  that  every  infant,  without 
exception,  of  the  respective  "nations,"  should  be  baptized,  and 
that  every  unbaptized  person  should  be  cut  oflf  from  his  or  her 
people.  And  why  has  not  Jehovah  long  ago  "  cut  ofi""  all  Chris- 
tians and  all  Christian  nations,  and  swept  them  oflT  from  the  face  of 
the  earth,  for  their  disregard  and  contempt  of  "  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision "  ?  Or  can  we  go  on,  and  make  such  further  alterations 
of  that  covenant  as  we  choose,  merety  retaining  enough  of  it  to 
warrant  the  baptism  of  the  infant  seed  of  confederate  believers, 
provided  such  believers  deem  it  fitting  and  best  ?  Plow  gingerty  and 
feebly  does  even  the  Protestant-Episcopal  Church  in  Article  XXVII. 
enforce  the  obligation  of  the  covenant  of  Abraham,  when  all  she  ven- 
tures to  say  is  (according  to  the  English  edition  of  1571),  "The 
baptisme  of  young  children  is  in  any  wyse  to  be  retaj'ned  in  the 
churche,  as  most  agreeable  with  the  institution  of  Christe  "  !  To 
like  purpose  the  minister,  in  his  exhortation  before  baptism,  says, 
' '  Nothing  doubting  but  that  He  favorably  alloweth  this  charitable 
work  of  ours  in  bringing  this  infant  to  this  hoty  baptism,"  &c. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  257 

Still  feebler  is  the  echo  of  this  doctrine  in  Article  XXVI.  of  the 
' '  Eeformed  ' '  Episcopal  Church :  ' '  The  baptism  of  3- oung  children 
is  retained  in  this  church  as  agreeable  to  ancient  usage,  and  not 
contrary  to  Holy  Writ."  Surely  such  hesitating,  mincing,  half- 
hearted declarations  as  these  respecting  one  of  Jehovah's  com- 
mands and  our  bounden  duty  must  be  displeasing  to  Him,  They 
who  would  admit  the  unregenerate  children  of  believers  into  the 
visible  church  tell  us,  furthermore,  that  the  church  of  Christ  was 
designed  of  God  to  be  a  mixed  community  of  good  and  e\il,  wheat 
and  tares,  and  that  the  separation  is  not  to  be  made  until  the  end 
of  the  world.  But  because  there  are  and  always  will  be  in  the 
church  of  Christ  unworthy  members,  deceivers,  or  self-deceived, 
is  this  a  reason  why  that  church,  which  is  Christ's  body,  designed 
to  be  a  spiritual  house,  built  of  living  stones,  a  communit}^  called 
out  and  separate  from  the  world,  composed  of  renewed,  believing.,, 
justified,  and  saved  souls,  saints,  and  faithful  brethren,  and  sub- 
ject unto  Christ, — why  such  a  church  should  purposely  make 
itself  one  with  the  "  world,"  and  incite  the  "  Enemy,"  who  is  the 
Devil,  to  come  in  and  sow  tares  among  the  wheat?  or  why  the 
"  sons  of  the  kingdom  "  should  seek  for  and  welcome  the  incom- 
ing and  fellowship  of  the  "  sons  of  the  Evil  One  "  ?  "  How  un- 
wary," says  Professor  Stuart  ("  On  the  Old  Testament,"  p.  395), 
"  are  many  excellent  men  in  contending  for  infant-baptism  on  the 
ground  of  the  Jewish  analog}'  of  circumcision !  Are  females  not 
proper  subjects  of  baptism?  And,  again,  are  a  man's  slaves  to  be 
all  baptized  because  he  is?  Are  they  church-members,  of  course, 
when  they  are  so  baptized?  Is  there  no  difference  between  in- 
grafting into  a  politico-ecclesiastical  communit}',  and  into  one  of 
which  it  is  said  that  it  '  is  not  of  this  world  '  ?  "  "  There  is  a 
difference,"  says  Dr.  Sears  ("  Christian  Review,"  vol.  iii.  p.  217), 
"  in  the  two  dispensations.  In  the  Mosaic  dispensation  the  the- 
ocracy was  designed  for  a  particular  nation,  and  was  hereditary  : 
an  external  sign  could,  therefore,  be  applied  to  those  who  were 
members  of  the  theocrac}'  by  birth.  But  in  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion it  is  wholly  different :  the  participation  must  be  internal,  a 
free,  conscious  reception,  a  regeneration,  of  which  baptism  is  the 
sign.  Hence  the  difference  in  the  two  dispensations  shows  of 
itself  that  baptism  presupposes  an  internal  change." 

But  it  may  be  asked,  "  What  advantage,  then,  hath  the  Jew?  or 


258  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

what  profit  is  there  of  drcumcision  ? ' '  Our  answer,  like  that  of 
the  great  preacher  of  "  the  gospel  of  the  uncircumcision,"  would 
be,  "Much  everj"  waj',  chieflj'  because  that  unto  them  were  com- 
mitted the  oracles  of  God."  They  enjoyed  not  onl}'  many  temporal 
blessings,  but  the  means  of  grace ;  and  especiallj^  blessed  were 
they  in  the  possession  of  God's  revealed  will.  The}'  thus  had 
mam"  and  great  means  of  improvement,  man}-  and  great  religious 
advantages  and  external  blessings.  But  all  these  pri^ileges  did 
not  confer  grace  in  the  heart,  or  a  time  faith ;  nor  did  circumcision 
sjTiibolize  the  actual  possession  of  grace  and  of  faith.  "  Scrip- 
ture," saj's  Dr.  Pusey,  "has  nowhere  the  slightest  hint  of  what 
moderns  so  often  assume,  that  it  imparted  any  spiritual  benefit." 
The  New  Testament,  he  sa^'s,  speaks  of  it,  "for  the  most  part,  to 
disparage  it."  And  the  writings  of  most  of  the  fathers,  and  the 
liturgies  of  the  early  church,  which  make  so  frequent  reference  to 
the  tj^ical  baptism  of  the  flood  and  of  the  Red  Sea,  are  almost 
wholly  silent  as  to  an}-  such  baptism  in  the  fleshlj'  circumcision 
made  b}'  hands.  "  See,"  said  Justin  Mart3T,  "  how*  God  rejects 
this  circumcision  which  was  given  as  a  sign ;  for  it  profits  neither 
the  Egj-ptians,  nor  the  children  of  Moab,  nor  of  Edom."  He 
avers  that  the  patriarchs  were  saved  without  it ;  that  Abraham  re- 
ceived it  for  a  sign,  and  not  for  justification  ;  and  that  women  could 
not  receive  it  in  the  flesh,  "  showing  that  circumcision  is  given  for 
a  sign,  not  to  work  righteousness."  "I  cry  aloud,"  he  adds, 
' '  the  blood  of  that  circumcision  hath  been  done  away,  and  we 
have  believed  in  the  saving  blood :  now  there  is  another  covenant, 
and  another  law  has  gone  forth  from  Zion  "  (see,  further,  in  Dr. 
Puse^^'s  tract  on  "Baptism").  There  is,  indeed,  some  resem- 
blance, and  it  has  been  justly  acknowledged  by  Baptist  authors, 
between  circumcision  and  Christian  baptism ;  and  we  feel  no 
hesitancy  in  calling  baptism,  as  some  of  the  fathers  did,  "the 
Christian  circumcision."  Pengill}-  obsen^es  that  "  the}'  were  both 
initiatory  ordinances, — the  one  into  the  body  politic  of  Israel  of 
old,  the  subjects  of  which  rite  are  all  the  male  inhabitants;  the 
other  into  the  body  of  Christ,  luMch  is  His  church,  and  the  subjects 
of  which  are  all  believers  in  Him."  Wiberg  ("On  Baptism," 
p.  201)  says,  '■'-As  circumcision  in  the  Old  Testament  belonged  to 
the  natural  seed  of  Abraham  by  -vdrtue  of  fleshly  birth,  so  baptism 
belongs  to  his  spiritual  seed  by  \irtue  of  regeneration  through 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  259 

faith."  Professor  G.  D.  B.  Pepper  also  asserts  that  "  circumcis- 
ion does  point  to  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  As  the  national 
Israel  typified  the  spiritual  Israel,  the  circumcision  which  immedi- 
atelj'  followed,  not  preceded,  natural  birth,  bids  us  baptize  chil- 
dren, not  before,  but  immediately  after,  spiritual  birth.  As  the 
spiritual  facts  pointed  to  b}'  circumcision  and  the  passover  were 
essentiall}^  the  same  with  those  symbolized  by  baptism  and  the 
supper,  the  reasons  which  required  the  undeviating  order  of 
sequence  in  the  observance  of  those  hold  also  of  these."  But 
how  strange  it  is  that  any  in  this  Christian  land  need  now  to  be 
told,  that  "  in  Chiist  Jesus  neither  circumcision  availeth  an}'  thing, 
nor  uncircumcision,  but  a  new  creation"  !  "  The  only  circumcision 
of  the  gospel,"  sa^^s  Lange,  "is,  according  to  Paul,  that  of  the 
heart."  And  this  spiritual  circumcision  made  without  hands,  and 
wrought  in  and  through  Christ,  tliis  putting-off,  not  an  insignifi- 
cant part,  but  the  whole  "bod}'  of  the  flesh,"  as  in  death,  is  the 
proi^er  prerequisite  of  Christian  baptism,  and  is  symbolized  by  the 
same.  And  if  Paul,  in  Col.  ii.  11,  12,  implies,  as  some  sup- 
pose, that  this  spiritual  circumcision  is  not  oul}'  represented,  but 
in  some  sense  is  realized,  in  our  baptismal  burial  with  Christ,  where- 
in the  old  man,  the  body  of  sin  and  of  death,  is  buried,  and  we 
rise  with  the  risen  Saviour  to  "  newness  of  life,"  we  will  gladly 
hope  for  and  rejoice  in  the  same.  One  thing,  however,  is  certain, 
that  neither  here,  nor  elsewhere  in  the  Christian  Scriptures,  is  it 
taught  by  the  inspired  wiiters  that  baptism  was  appointed  to  take 
the  place  of  an  outward  and  hand-made  circumcision :  on  the 
contrary,  the  apostles  and  elders,  after  considering  in  council  this 
very  question  of  the  continuance  of  circumcision,  not  only  do  not 
tell  the  "  zealots  of  the  law  "  that  baptism  b}'  divine  appointment 
has  taken  the  place  of  circumcision  (which  they  as  wise  men 
would  have  declared,  had  it  been  true,  and  thus  have  settled  the 
whole  matter  at  once) ,  but  the}^  decide  that  Gentile  believers,  at 
least,  shall  "observe  xo  such  thing"  (see  Acts  xv.  and  xxi.). 
"What  miserable  debaters,"  says  Alexander  Campbell,  in  his 
discussion  with  Dr.  N.  L.  Rice,  "  were  the  apostles,  that  they  did 
not  at  once  settle  the  dispute  by  saying,  '  Brethren,  do  you  not 
know  that  baptism  now  stands  in  the  place  of  circumcision,  and 
therefore  it  is  preposterous  to  circumcise  those  persons  who  have 
received  it  akeady  in  the  Christian  form? '  !  "    When  Paul,  also,  was 


260  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

accused  (Acts  xxi.  21)  of  teaching  all  the  Jews  who  were  among 
the  Gentiles  "that  they  should  not  circumcise  their  children," 
how  fit  an  opportunity  was  this  to  replj^,  that,  under  the  gospel 
dispensation,  the  infant  seed  of  believers,  whether  Jews  or  Gen- 
tiles, were  to  receive  baptism  instead  of  circumcision !  ^  Thus  the 
apostles  individual!}^,  and  in  council  assembled,  have  declared  cir- 
cumcision abolished  ;  and  neither  they  nor  their  di^ane  Lord  ever 
spoke  of  baptism  as  a  substitute.  The  fact,  moreover,  that  circum- 
cision continued  to  be  practised  in  the  apostohc  age  along  with 
baptism,  proves  that  baptism  was  not  regarded  as  having  taken 
the  place  of  circumcision.  "  A  co-observance  of  circumcision," 
as  Dr.  Hovey  remarks,  "  has  no  meaning,  if  baptism  had  entered 
simply  into  its  place." 

1  "  He  who  says  of  Mmself,  that  Christ  sent  liim,  not  to  baptize,  but  to 
preacli  the  gospel ;  he  who  always  kept  bis  eye  iixed  on  one  thing,  justifica- 
tion by  faith,  and  so  carefully  avoided  every  thing  which  could  give  a  handle 
or  support  to  the  notion  of  a  justification  by  outward  things,  —  how  could 
he  have  set  up  infant-baptism  against  the  circumcision  that  continued  to  be 
practised  by  the  Jewish  Christians  ?  In  this  case,  the  dispute  carried  on 
with  the  Judaizing  party,  on  the  necessity  of  circumcision,  would  easily 
have  given  an  opportunity  of  introducing  this  substitute  into  the  controversy. 
The  evidence  arising  from  silence  on  this  topic  has,  therefore,  the  greater 
weight."  — Neastder's  Planting  and  Training  of  the  Church,  p.  102. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  261 


CHAPTER    XXVn. 


HOUSEHOLD   BAPTISMS. 


IT  is  from  the  household  baptisms  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
from  God's  family  constitution  of  society,  that  Dr.  Dale  (who 
here  closely  follows  Dr.  BushneU)  derives  the  chief  support  of 
infant-baptism  (see  his  "Christie  Baptism,"  p.  219,  seq.).  This 
household  baptism  as  set  forth  by  Dr.  Dale,  and  a  proper  cii'- 
cumcision-baptism,  are  in  some  respects  much  alike ;  yet  they 
differ  in  two  or  three  points  besides  those  which  we  have  pre- 
viously indicated.  Infant-circumcision  was  not  grounded  on  the 
piety  of  parents,  but  on  a  physical  descent  from  Abraham. 
Ahaziah,  the  son  of  Ahab  and  Jezebel,  was  as  properly  the  sub- 
ject of  this  rite  as  a  son  of  Josiah  or  of  Daniel  would  have  been. 
Dr.  Dale,  we  think,  allows  of  household  baptisms  only  on  the 
ground  of  piety  in  the  family  head ;  and  thus  even  he  leaves  a 
large  majority  of  children  "  under  the  covenant  of  death."  This 
family  head,  moreover,  in  Dale's  scheme,  ma}^  be  either  father  or 
mother ;  while  in  the  ancient  economy  the  father  alone  was  the 
head  and  representative  of  the  family,  and  males  onl}^  were  cir- 
cumcised. Again:  everyone  of  Abraham's  "  three  hundred  and 
eighteen  trained  servants  "  (if  then  living) ,  and  "  every  male,"  old 
or  young,  "among  the  men  of  Abraham's  house"  (a  ver}'  large 
number,  doubtless ;  too  large,  some  may  think,  for  Abraham, 
in  Jiis  critical  situation,  alone  to  circumcise  in  one  day,  unless  he 
practised  a  "  compend  "  of  that  rite,  or  had  some  persons  to 
assist  him),  had  to  be  circumcised,  nolens  volens,  with  faith,  or 
without  faith;  but,  in  the  case  of  "household"  baptisms,  only 
those  servants  could  be  baptized  on  the  ground  of  their  master's 
or  mistress's  faith  who  properly  belonged  to  the  "  household."  It 
will  be  perceived,  moreover,  that  this  household  scheme  of  bap- 


262  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

tism  —  as  performed  solely  on  the  faith  of  the  family  head,  and 
because  there  is  a  "  unit}'  of  life  between  the  family  head  and  its 
members,  making  it  obligatory  upon  the  head  to  receive  God's 
commands  and  promises  alike  for  his  family  as  for  himself"  —  will 
include  not  only  the  unbelieving  infants,  but  the  unregenerate 
adults,  of  such  household.  Consequently,  had  Dr.  Dale  been  in 
Paul's  place  when  writing  his  first  letter  to  the  Corinthians,  he 
would  have  said,  "If  any  brother  has  a  wife  that  believes  not, 
let  her  be  baptized  without  delay.  His  faith,  as  the  family  head, 
is  the  faith  of  his  house.  See,  then,  that  3'ou  do  not  exclude,  as 
will  some  heretics  who  shall  arise  in  the  last  times,  God's  family 
constitution  from  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  give  it  over  to  Satan. 
For  I  would  not  have  3'ou  ignorant,  brethren,  that  the  constitution 
of  the  gospel  kingdom  is  in  harmony  with  God's  constitution  of 
the  human  race.  Not  only  so  ;  but  the  promise  now  is  to  j^ou  and 
your  consorts,  as  well  as  3'oiu:  infant-children ;  and  the  law  of 
baptism  in  Jesus  Christ  is,  she  and  her  houseJiold,  he  and  all  his. 
Know  ye  not,  brethren,  that  at  Philippi  I  baptized  '  Lydia  and 
her  household,'  the  'jailer  and  all  his'?  And  have  you  forgotten 
that  in  3'our  own  city  I  baptized  '  the  household  of  Stephanas '  ? 
I  wonder  that  you  haA'e  so  soon  forgotten  these  things,  and  that, 
instead  of  bringing  3-our  unconverted  heathen  wives  to  baptism, 
you  are  thinking  of  putting  them  away."  Yes,  Dr.  Dale  would 
decide,  in  the  words  of  Professor  A.  C.  Kendrick  ("  Christian  Ee- 
view,"  1863,  p.  288),  "  that  a  wife  fresh  from  a  sacrifice  to  Juno, 
that  daughters  who  had  just  been  rendering  their  vows  to  Venus, 
that  sons  whose  hands  were  reeking  with  offerings  to  Mars,  that 
servants  who  daily  invoked  Mercury,  the  patron  god  of  thieves," 
—  that  all  these  "  should  be  baptized  because  of  the  faith  and  piety 
of  the  '  family  head.'  "  Surely  the  apostles,  if  they  practised  by 
this  rule,  would  have  poured  "  a  fresh  tide  of  unrepented  heathen- 
ism into  the  bosom  of  the  infant  church." 

"  It  cannot  be,"  says  Dr.  Dale,  "  but  that,  sooner  or  later,  all 
good  and  wise  men  will  be  shocked  by  any  system  which  places 
the  kingdom  of  God  in  antagonism  with  the  famil}'  constitution  of 
the  human  race."  But  society,  states,  or  nations,  are  composed 
of  families,  and  are  of  God's  ordaining ;  and  why  should  not  Dr. 
Dale  (in  harmou}^  with  our  Lord's  commission,  as  some  Pedo- 
baptists  interpret  it)  include  God's  national  constitution  of  the 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  263 

human  race  in  tlie  kingdom  of  God  ?  ' '  "We  have  Abraham  for 
our  father,"  said  the  unbelieving  Jews.  But  how  emphaticall}'  do 
both  John  and  Jesus  impugn  this  idea  of  hereditary  salvation ! 
Jesus  tells  those  Jews  who  believed  not,  —  Jews  outwardlj",  but 
not  inwardly,  yet  ever  boasting  of  their  descent  from  the  father  of 
believers, — that  they,  nevertheless,  were  the  children  of  the  father 
of  lies.  So  strong  is  Dale's  dislike  of  "  naked  individualism  "  in 
the  kingdom  of  God,  that  he  allows  no  room  for  the  "  fire  "  and 
the  "sword''  of  Christ  on  earth,  no  division  of  "one  house," 
—  "three  against  two,  and  two  against  three,  the  father  divided 
against  the  son,  and  the  son  against  the  father,  the  mother 
against  the  daughter,  and  the  daughter  against  the  mother,"  so 
that  "  a  man's  foes  shall  be  they  of  his  own  household."  "  We 
believe,"  says  Dale,  "that  the  constitution  of  God's  gospel  king- 
dom is  in  harmony  with  God's  constitution  of  the  human  race. 
We  do,  therefore,  accept  the  statements,  '  Lydia  and  her  house- 
hold,' '  the  jailer  and  his  household,'  '  Stephanas  and  his  house- 
hold,' at  the  normal  value  of  their  terms,  and  as  declaring  that 
'  households '  are  received  into  the  kingdom  of  God  as  embraced 
in  a  covenant  relation  established  between  the  family  head  and 
the  God  of  the  familj' ;  and  we  do  reject  as  the  profoundest  of 
errors,  essentially  vitiating  the  constitution  of  Christ's  kingdom, 
and  as  antagonizing  every  covenant  formed  b}^  God  with  the 
human  race  from  the  beginning  of  time  until  now,  the  idea  that 
individualism  has  supplanted  and  excluded  the  famil}'  as  an 
organic  element  in  the  kingdom  of  God  and  in  the  covenant  of 
redemption"  ("Christie  Baptism,"  p.  238).  But  is  Dr.  Dale, 
as  an  evangelical  Protestant,  altogether  pleased  with  "the  con- 
stitution of  Christ's  kingdom  "as  it  exists,  for  example,  in  man}' 
nations  of  Europe  and  the  Old  World,  where  the  Saviour's  com- 
mission, disciple  and  baptize,  is  wholly  reversed,  and  virtuallj' 
abolished ;  where  nearly  all  the  inhabitants  are  church-members, 
baptized  and  made  members  of  Christ,  children  of  God,  and  in- 
heritors of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  in  infancy',  at  which  time,  as  in 
the  Greek  Church,  or  siibsequently,  as  in  the  Roman,  they  were 
"  confirmed,"  and  qualified  to  receive  the  eucharist  as  disciples 
of  Christ,  while  perhaps  a  vast  majority  of  said  church-members 
are,  in  the  judgment  of  charit}',  destitute  of  spiritual  life,  man}'  of 
them  being  shamelessly  profane  and  dissolute,  while  many  more 


264  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

are  professed  deists,  pantheists,  materialists,  atheists,  open  scoff- 
ers of  the  religion  of  Christ?  Let  Dr.  Dale  go  among  these 
people  as  a  missionar}^,  and  urge  upon  their  attention  the  impor- 
tance of  personal  religion,  the  need  of  a  new  heart,  and  of  a  living 
faith :  will  the}^  not  indignantly^  exclaim  that  they  were  baptized 
and  regenerated  in  infancy,  and  made  the  children  of  grace,  and 
members  of  the  onl}^  true  church, — the  church  which  was  the  first, 
and  which  will  be  the  last,  —  and  that  they  are  perfectly  sure  of 
heaven  ?  And  being  thus  obliged  to  regard  aU  the  people  as  con- 
verted, and  being  thus  forbidden  to  separate  them  into  two 
classes,  the  renewed  and  unrenewed,  will  not  our  missionary, 
through  the  actual  workings  of  this  constitution  of  the  kingdom 
of  Christ,  be  exceedingly  discouraged,  as  many  another  has  been, 
in  his  attempt  to  convert  them  full}'  and  truly  to  Christ?  And  is 
not  infant-baptism  to-day,  throughout  the  earth,  lulling  counties* 
numbers  into  a  fatal  indifference  and  unconcern  as  to  spiritual  and 
eternal  things?  Perhaps  Dr.  Dale,  as  a  Presbj'terian,  would  ob- 
ject that  these  untold  mj^riads  of  baptized  households  had  no 
pious  "family  head,"  and  ought  not,  therefore,  to  have  been 
baptized.  But  are  all  the  infant  members  of  such  households  to 
be  debarred  from  the  kingdom,  and,  if  they  die  in  infancy,  be  for- 
ever lost  on  this  account  ?  This  view  of  things  would  be  about  as 
bad  as  the  "theory"  (of  Baptists,  we  suppose)  which,  as  Dale 
sa^'s,  "excludes  little  children  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven" 
("Christie  Baptism,"  p.  234) .  What  an  imputation  is  this  !  And 
a  like  one,  cast  upon  somebody,  is  found  on  p.  224:  "When  the 
Bible  shuts  out  infants  from  the  richest  blessings  of  the  cross,  and 
precludes  parents  from  prating  in  their  behalf  for  these  blessings, 
then,  and  not  till  then,  men  may  shut  them  out  from  the  seal  of 
those  blessings  which  belong,  tlnrough  covenant  grace,  alike  to 
parents  and  children." 

But,  though  this  familj^-baptism  theory  of  Dr.  Dale's  is  mainly 
spun  out  of  his  own  brain,  he  yet  thinks  to  find  some  Support  for  it 
in  certain  occurrences  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament.  In  favor  of 
his  view,  he  especially  emphasizes  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of 
the  paschal  lamb  on  the  lintels  and  doorposts  bj^  the  household 
heads  (was  it  not  by  the  elders  of  Israel?  —  Exod.  xii.  21)  as  the 
means  of  saving  the  first-born  from  death,  and  says,  "Little 
children  of  the  households,  symbolly  redeemed  b}-  the  blood  of 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  265 

sprinkling,  through  the  faith  and  obedience  of  the  family  head, 
was  the  truth  written  in  blood,  and  taught  in  every  household  of 
Israel  for  a  thousand  and  a  half- thousand  years."  But  were 
these  first-born  (sons)  all  "little  children"  necessarily?  We 
suppose,  that,  in  many  of  these  households,  there  were  no  little 
children,  but  that  the  first-born  might,  perhaps,  have  been  one  of 
the  adult  members,  or  even  the  "  family  head."  We  grant,  with 
our  author,  that  it  would  have  been  folly  and  sin  for  the  parents 
of  Israel  to  sa}^,  "  This  sprinkling  by  us  can  do  our  children  no 
good ;  they  cannot  repent,  they  cannot  believe,  they  cannot  obej', 
the}^  cannot  understand  an}'  thing  about  it ' '  (we  were  not  aware 
that  these  mental  efibrts  were  required  of  the  "  children")  ;  "we 
will  not  observe  such  a  service  : ' '  for  this  would  have  been  direct 
disobedience  of  God's  plain  command.  And,  had  Christ  as  plainly 
commanded  believing  parents  to  baptize  their  infant  offspring,  it 
would  be  criminal  disobedience,  and  a  wrong  to  those  little  ones, 
to  refuse  them  this  rite.  But  when  we  are  not  commanded,  but 
virtuall}'  forbidden,  to  do  so,  and  j-et  do  the  same,  are  we  not 
doing  our  best,  consciously  or  not,  to  annihilate  the  onl}^  baptism 
appointed  by  Christ's  commission, — the  baptism  of  discipled  and 
repentant  believers?  And  do  we  not  wrong  our  children  also,  by 
depriving  them,  if  ever  converted,  of  the  privilege  of  obeying  the 
Lord's  command  for  themselves,  as  also  the  sweet  remembrance 
forever  after  of  a  great  duty  cheerfully  performed  for  Christ  ? 

"  Another  illustrative  case  is  found,"  says  our  author,  "  in  the 
co-baptism  of  a  half-million  parents  and  children  '  into  Moses  '  at 
the  Red  Sea.  Never  was  there  such  a  procession  of  families  going 
(as  Paul,  1  Cor.  x.  2,  tells  us)  on  the  wa}'  to  baptism."  The 
principle  on  which  all  these  infant-baptisms  were  performed  is  not 
stated.  Baptism,  then,  for  certain,  had  not  taken  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision ;  and  even  Dr.  Dale,  I  ween,  would  hardly  say  that 
these  "  half-million  families,  more  or  less,"  all  had  a  pious  famil}' 
head.  Moreover,  I  have  m}^  doubts  whether  Paul,  when  he  as- 
serted that  "  all  ouv  fathers"  baptized  themselves  unto  Moses,  and 
all  ate  the  same  spiritual  food,  and  drank  the  same  spiritual  drink, 
and  were  finally  overthrown  in  the  wilderness,  had  an}'  reference 
to  infants.  But  this  baptism  was  of  an  unusual  character,  and  is 
altogether  too  ' '  figurative  ' '  and  unique  to  derive  therefrom  any 
solid  argument  bearing  upon  the  point  in  question.  We  pass, 
therefore,  to  consider,  next,  — 


266  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BAPTISMS    OF   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT. 

In  all  the  New  Testament  there  are  explicitly  mentioned,  or 
plainly  implied,  six  believing.  God-fearing  households.  This 
number  includes  the  baptized  household  of  Lydia,  though  little  is 
said  directl}^  respecting  its  character.  The  other  five  households 
embrace  that  of  the  nobleman  at  Capernaum,  of  the  centurion 
Cornehus,  of  the  jailer  at  Philippi,  and  of  Crispus  and  Stepha- 
nas at  Corinth  (John  iv.  53  ;  Acts  x,  2,  xvi.  15,  34,  xviii.  8  ; 
1  Cor.  xvi.  15).  Other  believing  households  are  perhaps  fairly 
implied ;  to  wit,  those  of  Onesiphorus,  Aristobulus,  and  Narcissus 
(2  Tim.  i.  16  ;  Rom.  xvi.  10,  11).  Of  these  households,  those  of 
Lydia,  the  jailer,  and  Stephanas,  are  expressly  mentioned  as  hav- 
ing been  baptized.  Other  households,  doubtless,  were  also  bap- 
tized. Crispus  himself  was  baptized  by  Paul :  and  probably  his 
household  were  baptized  at  the  samfr  time ;  for  they  were  all 
believers.  So  the  devout  Gentile  Cornelius,  doubtless,  was  bap- 
tized with  his  God-fearing  household;  for  "on  the  Gentiles  was 
poured  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit:  "  and  Peter  answered, 
"  Can  any  man  forbid  the  water  [i.e.,  baptism],  that  these  should 
not  be  baptized,  who  received  the  Holy  Ghost  even  also  as  we?  "  ^ 


1  Alford  says  that  "this  expression,  'forbid  the  water,'  &c.,  is  interest- 
ing, as  showing  that  the  practice  was  to  bring  the  water  to  the  candidates, 
and  not  the  candidates  to  the  water.  This,  which  would  be  implied  by  the 
word  under  any  circumstances,  is  rendered  certain  when  we  remember  that 
they  were  assembled  in  the  house."  We  simply  remark,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  this  is  not  the  practice  as  generally  indicated  in  the  New  Testament 
and  on  the  page  of  earliest  Christian  history.  Besides,  the  distinguished 
commentator,  whose  body  now  rests,  as  his  epitaph  declares,  in  the  deverso- 
rium  viatoris  Hierosolymam  projiciscentis,  did  not  distinctly  tell  us  whether 
the  water  which  was  to  be  brought  in  was  to  be  used  for  sprinkling,  pour- 
ing, or  immersion.  What  a  pity  that  our  friends  cannot  find  the  words 
meaning  "  to  be  brought"  in  some  one  of  all  our  Greek  manuscripts!  In 
our  opinion,  the  query  of  Peter  means  no  more  than  that  of  the  eunuch. 
The  latter  asked,  "  What  forbids  me  to  be  baptized?"  while  Peter  inquires, 
"  Who  can  forbid  the  water  ?  "  Even  were  sprinkling  the  "  mode,"  we  can 
hardly  think  Peter's  question  amounted  merely  to  this,  "  Can  any  one  forbid 
a  basin  of  water  to  be  brought  in  ?"  &c.  Besides,  as  one  writer  remarks,  if 
this  (sprinkling)  were  all  the  ceremony,  and  to  be  performed  on  the  spot, 
there  seems  to  be  no  reason  why  Peter  should  have  left  its  performance  to 
others.     No :  the  whole  history  of  baptize  proper,  whether  Classic,  Judaic, 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  267 

"  Anti-Pedobaptist  "  ministers  at  the  present  day  have  also  the 
j)rivilege,  perhaps  as  often  as  the  apostles  did,  of  baptizing  whole 


Joliannic,  Christie,  or  Patristic,  shows  that  persons  were  led  to  the  water, 
and  then  were  completely  intusposed  within  it,  for  baptism.  The  first  voice 
(of  Barnabas)  which  has  reached  iis  from  post-apostolic  history  is,  "  Kata- 
bainomen  eis  to  hudor,"  &c.,  —  "We  go  down  into  the  water  full  of  sins  and 
pollution,  but  come  up  again  bringing  forth  fruit."  "  Blessed  are  they  who 
put  their  trust  in  the  cross  [the  tree  planted  by  the  rivers],  and  descend  into 
the  water'"  (Barnabas  10:  10-14).  The  next  voice,  perhaps,  is  that  from 
the  shepherd  of  Hernias:  "Aqua  in  quam  descendunt  homines  .  .  .  ascendunt 
vera,"  &c.,  —  "The  water  [of  baptism]  into  which  men  descend  bound  to 
death,  but  come  up  appointed  unto  life,"  &c.  (Hermas  III.,  Similitude  IX., 
153,  151).  See  also  Vision  III.  41,  42,  75,  76,  for  Hennas'  description  of 
"the  tower"  (the  church)  "built  upon  the  water,"  and  of  the  stones 
"  which  fell  by  the  water,  and  could  not  roll  into  the  water;"  which  stones 
represent  "such  as  have  heard  the  word,  and  were  willing  to  be  baptized," 
.  .  .  but  "  withdrew  themselves,  walking  again  after  their  wicked  lusts." 
Justin  Martyr,  born  A.D.  89,  says,  "Then  they"  (the  persuaded  and 
believing  ones)  "are  led  by  us  to  a  place  where  there  is  water,  .  .  .  and 
make  their  bath  in  the  water."  And  again:  "Leading  to  the  loutron  [the 
bath]  of  baptism  the  person  to  be  bathed."  He  also  says,  "  We  represent 
our  Lord's  sufferings  and  resurrection  in  a  pool."  Ireneeus  (born  about 
A.D.  110),  who  sat  at  the  feet  of  John's  disciple  Polycarp,  speaking  of  some 
of  the  heretical  Valentinian  Gnostics,  says,  "  Some  bring  the  party  to  the 
water,"  but  use  a  strange,  uncouth  formula.  And  "some  of  them  say 
that  it  is  needless  to  bring  the  person  to  the  water  at  all,"  (Ba^jtists,  cer- 
tainly, are  not  their  successors!)  "  but,  maldng  a  mixture  of  oil  and  water, 
they  POUB  (!)  it  on  his  head,"  &c. ;  "  by  which  words  of  bis,"  says  Wall, 
"  and  by  a  thousand  other  instances,  it  appears  that  the  Catholics  did 
ordinarily  put  the  whole  body  in  water."  The  theory  and  practice  of  Ter- 
tullian  (born  A.D.  160)  are  well  known.  Compare  his  "  Aquam  adituri," 
"coming"  (from  the  church)  "to  the  water,"  with  his  "Aqua  mergimur, 
ter  mergitamur,  homo  in  aqua  demissus  et  inter  pawca  verba  tinctus,  .  .  . 
resurgit.  Nos  plsciculi  .  .  .  in  aquis  nascimur,"  &c. ;  that  is,  "We  are 
(thrice)  immersed  in  water.  A  man  let  down  into  the  water  and  dipped 
,  .  .  rises  again.  We  little  fishes,  like  our  Ichthxts  (Jesus  Christ),  are  born  in 
water,"  &c.  "  After  these  things  ye  were  led  by  the  hand  to  the  sacred  pool 
of  the  divine  baptism  as  Christ  from  the  cross  to  the  prepared  tomb.  And 
each  was  asked  if  he  believes,  &c.  And  ye  professed  the  saving  profession, 
and  sunk  down  thrice  into  the  water,  and  again  came  up"  (Cyril  of  Jeru- 
salem, born  about  A.D.  315).  What  Professor  Stuart  has  remarked  on  the 
above  assertion  of  Justin  he  probably  would  not  hesitate  to  apply  to 
other  passages  cited.  His  language  is,  "  I  am  persuaded  that  this  passage, 
as  a  whole,  most  naturally  refers  to  immersion;  for  whj',  on  any  other 
ground,  should  the  convert  who  is  to  be  initiated  go  out  to  the  place  where 


268.  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

families  together ;  though,  of  course,  the  number  of  such  simul- 
taneously believing  and  baptized  houses  is  not  large,  especially  in 
Christian  lands  where  the  gospel  has  long  been  preached.  In 
newly-visited  heathen  regions  such  occurrences  are  much  more 
common,  as  our  foreign  missionary  journals  bear  witness.^    And 

there  is  water  ?  There  could  be  no  need  of  this,  if  mere  sprinkling,  or 
partial  affusion  only,  was  customaiy."  Dr.  Dale,  we  suppose,  would  be 
willing  to  concede  the  same;  for  even  he  unhesitatingly  acknowledges 
the  fact  of  a  momentary  water-covering  in  the  ex  ordine  regular  patristic 
baptism  (see  Patristic  Baptism,  pp.  544,  545).  Yet  holding,  as  he  does, 
that  the  patristic  baptism  consisted  in  a  "  spiritual  effect,"  he  would  deny 
any  necessity  for  leading  the  candidates  "  out  to  the  place  where  there 
is  water;  "  that  is,  for  the  sake  of  immersion.  The  patrists,  however,  saw 
a  necessity  for  doing  this  whenever  it  was  a  possible  thing.  And  it  is  a 
noteworthy  fact,  that  Dr.  Dale  has  not,  for  the  best  of  reasons,  attempted 
to  show  that  the  "  spiritual  effect  "  sought  after  in  baptism  by  the  patrists 
could  not  be  secured  by  the  ritual  act  or  usage  of  immersion  in  water.  This 
"  in  aqua  mergimur,"  or  immersion  in  water,  should,  therefore,  be  ac- 
knowledged by  every  one  as  the  "mode"  of  patristic  baptism  whenever  it 
was  possible ;  and  we  can  think  but  little  of  any  man's  intelligence  or  hon- 
esty who  would  deny  this. 

And,  in  view  of  the  above-given  earliest  utterances  of  the  Christian 
Church  after  the  apostles,  what  could  we  expect  Dr.  Lyman  Coleman, 
author  of  Christian  Antiquities,  &c.,  to  say,  but  that  exclusive  immersion 
in  his  view  "was  the  first  departure  from  the  teaching  and  example  of 
the  apostles  on  this  subject"?  (See  his  Ancient  Christianity  Exemplified, 
chap.  19,  sect.  4.) 

1  It  has  been  asserted  by  some  of  our  Pedobaptist  friends,  that,  when  we 
Baptists  report  the  baptism  of  households,  we  are  (unlike  the  historian 
Luke)  very  careful  to  state  that  they  were  all  believers;  and  that  the  Scrip- 
ture method  of  reporting  such  baptisms  better  corresponds  with  Pedo- 
baptistic  practice.  We  shall  see,  however,  that  insijiration  has,  in  general, 
been  veiy  careful  to  state  or  indicate  the  fact  that  these  baptized  hoiises  were 
repentant  and  believing.  And,  if  there  be  any  difference  between  Luke's 
method  of  reporting  and  our  own,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  circum- 
stances theri  were  not  the  same  as  ours  now.  There  were  no  infant  or  indis- 
criminate baptisms  in  Luke's  day:  consequently,  he  needed  not  to  be  so 
guarded  in  his  statements  as  we  are  obliged  to  be. 

As  we  have  here  touched  upon  the  "  Scripture  method  of  reporting  bap- 
tisms," we  will  subjoin  what  the  "venerable  Booth"  says  on  this  subject: 
"Were  my  reader  to  peruse  a  narrative  of  baptismal  practice  penned  by  a 
foreigner,  or  by  any  anonymous  author  of  whom  he  had  no  knowledge  but 
what  was  obtained  from  his  writings ;  were  he  to  find  him  speak  of  choosing 
a  place  for  the  administration  of  baptism,  in  preference  to  others,  because 
there  was  much  water  there ;  of  his  baptizing  in  a  river;  of  going  down  with 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  269 

we  are  persuaded  that  very  many  more  instances  of  baptized 
houses  would  have  been  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  had  it 
been  the  custom  in  apostolic  times  for  whole  families,  little  ones 
and  all,  to  be  baptized  with  the  "  family  head."  But  the  question 
now  is,  Were  the  individuals  of  these  three  baptized  households 
all  believers  ?  We  think  so.  We  are  sure,  that,  when  Paul  preached 
at  Philippi  (where  Lj^dia  and  the  jailer  resided)  and  at  Corinth 
(where  Stephanas  had  his  home) ,  he  counselled  and  exhorted  them 
all  to  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  for  the  salvation  of  their 
souls.  As  the  result  of  his  preaching  at.  Corinth,  "  many  of  the 
•  Corinthians,"  we  are  told,  "  hearing,  believed  and  were  baptized." 
Crispus  believed  on  the  Lord,  "with  all  his  house."  Stephanas 
was  one  of  the  "  many"  believers ;  and  we  learn  (from  1  Cor.  i. 
16)  that  Paul  baptized  his  house  or  famil}'  (oikos) ,  and  (from  1  Cor. 
xvi.  15)  that  his  household  (or  oiJcia)  were  the  "first-fruits  of 
Achaia  unto  Christ,  and  that  they  devoted  themselves  to  the 
service  of  the  saints."  The  "little  ones"  of  Stephanas'  house- 
hold must  have  grown  up  very  quickly  !  C.  Taylor  maintains  that 
oiJcos  means  one's  family,  and  "imports  children;"  while  oiJcia 
embraces  domestics  or  servants,  and  that  only  the  former  were 
baptized  with  the  family  head.  This,  if  proved  true,  would  only 
show  in  this  instance  that  the  family  proper  of  Stephanas,  as  well 
as  his  domestics,  addicted  themselves  to  the  ministrj^  of  the  saints  ; 
for  Mr.  Taj'lor  himself  tells  us  that  "  the  term  oikia  includes  the 
house."  The  Greek  lexicons,  however,  do  not  warrant  any  such 
distinction,  but  rather  seem  to  indicate,  that,  if  there  be  any  differ- 
ence, the  oikia  is,  in  some  respects,  the  more  limited  term.  To  the 
jailer  at  Philippi  Paul  said,  "Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Chiist, 
and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  thy  house  "  (oikos).     This  supposes 

the  candidate  into,  and  coming  up  out  of,  the  water;  were  he  to  find  him  re- 
minding baptized  persona  of  their  having  been  buried  and  raised  with  Christ 
in  baptism ;  and  were  he  to  observe  that  the  author  always  uses  a  word  for  the 
ordinance,  which,  in  its  primary  acceptation,  signifies  immersion,  but  never 
talks  of  bringinr/  water  to  the  candidate,  or  of  using  a  basin,  as  preparatory 
to  the  administration,  — he  would,  I  presume,  be  ready  to  say,  '  This  author, 
whoever  he  be,  writes  like  a  Baptist.  He  speaks  the  language  of  one  that 
considers  baptism  as  nothing  short  of  immersion.  If,  however,  contrary  to 
all  appearances,  he  practise  aspersion,  and  intended  to  inform  the  public  of 
that  particular,  he  has  chosen  a  very  singular  method  in  which  to  do  it, 
and  has  expressed  himself  in  the  most  awkward  manner  imaginable,'  " 


270  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

that  his  house  or  family  were  to  beheve,  as  well  as  himself,  iu 
order  to  their  salvation.  "When  Peter  proclaimed  the  gospel  mes- 
sage to  Cornelius  (Act  xi.  14),  whereby  he  should  be  saved,  and 
"all  his  house"  (oiVcos),  it  is  taken  for  granted  that  "all  his 
house,"  as  well  as  himself,  would  hear  and  receive  the  words  of 
salvation.  And  from  Acts  x.  2  we  learn  that  "all  his  house" 
(oven  to  the  youngest  babe)  feared  God,  as  well  as  himself,  and 
were  ready  to  welcome  the  words  spoken.  And  the  little  ones  in 
Crispus'  oiJcos  or  family  (if  there  were  any)  beheved  in  the  Lord 
as  well  as  himself;  for  "  all  his  house  "  believed  (Acts  xviii.  8). 
And  again:  the  "whole  household"  (oikia)  of  the  nobleman, 
including,  of  course,  his  little  infant,  believed,  together  with  their 
father  (John  iv.  53).  How  singular  that  all  the  "  whole  houses  " 
of  the  New  Testament  are  named  believers  !  And  two,  at  least, 
of  the  three  baptized  houses  or  families,  are  plainly  indicated  to 
be  believers.  But  let  us  look  again  at  the  jailer's  house  or  house- 
hold ;  for  there  belonged  to  him  both  oikos  and  oikia.  "  And  they 
spoke  to  him  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his 
{oikia)  household."  Infants  may  have  been  there  ;  but,  if  so,  they 
were  not,  as  auditors,  embraced  within  the  "all"  to  whom  Paul 
and  others  "spoke  the  word."  After  "himself  and  all  his" 
were  baptized,  we  read  that  he  "rejoiced  (panoiki)  with  all  his 
house,  having  believed  in  God."  Rev.  William  Hodges  (in  his 
"  Infant  Baptism  ")  saj's  he  rejoiced  "  in  the  midst  of  his  family." 
But  did  he  rejoice  nowhere  else?  and  did  not  his  "  saved  "  family 
rejoice  with  him  too?  Rev.  Mr.  Heaton  says,  he  rejoiced  "re- 
specting his  house."  But  this  is  a  makeshift  rendering,  without 
authority  or  evidence,  and  is  unworthj^  of  notice.  The  truth  is, 
that  he  rejoiced  especially  respecting  himself;  and  the  reason  of 
his  rejoicing  was  that  he  had  become  a  believer.  So  De  Wette, 
Meyer,  and  others.  Mej'er  connects  panoiki  {with  all  his  house)  to 
the  word  rendered  'believing^  by  which  construction  all  his  house 
are  direct!}^  named  believers.  We  prefer  to  connect  it  with  the 
verb,  he  rejoiced  with  all  his  house  :  and  we  affirm  that  the  reason 
of  their  rejoicing  was  the  same  as  his ;  namely,  because  they,  too, 
had  become  believers,  and  were  "  saved."  But,  if  they  rejoiced 
on  the  ground  of  his  believing,  this  indicates  a  right  state  of  heart 
in  them.  Certainly  neither  unconscious  infants  nor  unregenerate 
adults  would  have  rejoiced  much  at  his   conversion.      Another 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  271 

Philippian  household  which  was  baptized  was  that  of  L3-dia.  She 
was  a  merchant- woman,  a  seller  of  purple,  from  the  city  of  Thya- 
tira.  She  had  a  dwelling-house,  and  also  a  household,  in  Philippi, 
where  she  was  then  residing,  consisting,  it  maj-  be,  of  those  who 
assisted  her  in  business.  Many  infants  from  first  to  last  have 
been  assigned  to  her  family' ;  but  this  is  the  sheerest  guess-work. 
If  she  ever  had  a  husband,  the  probability  is  that  he  was  long 
since  dead.  Paul  spoke  to  her  and  other  "  women  "  at  the  place 
of  prayer  bj'  "a  river's  side,"  and  the  Lord  opened  her  heart  to 
attend  to  the  things  spoken.  After  she  and  her  household  were 
baptized,  she  said  to  Paul  and  his  companions  (Silas,  Luke,  and 
Timothy),  "  If  ye  have  judged  me  to  be  a  believer  in  the  Lord 
(thus  emphasizing  faith  in  Christ  as  the  important  thing) ,  come 
into  my  house  and  abide"  (see  Acts  xvi.  13-15).  As  all  these 
guests  seem  to  have  tarried  there  "many  days,"  her  "house" 
would  appear  to  be  quite  an  establishment,  and  she  must  have  had 
considerable  adult  help  in  her  various  work.  In  verse  40  we  read 
that  Paul  and  Silas,  after  their  release  from  imprisonment,  entered 
into  the  house  of  Lydia,  where  the}^  saw  and  exhorted  "  the  breth- 
ren," doubtless  the  recent  converts,  some  of  whom  may  have 
been  her  associates  in  business,  or  (if  we  must  have  her  a  mar- 
ried woman)  possibty  her  own  sons!  "  See,"  said  Chr3'sostom, 
"how  she  persuacleth  aU  "  her  house!  And  these  are  all  the 
instances  commonly  relied  on  of  infant-baptism  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. When  we  take  into  consideration,  not  onh'  the  character, 
as  above  indicated,  of  these  respective  households,  but  the  requisi- 
tions of  the  great  commission,  and  what  we  must  term  the  gist  of 
the  apostle's  preaching,  ever  requiring  as  the  "  first  principles  of 
the  doctrine  of  Christ  .  .  .  the  foundation  of  repentance  and 
of  faitJi,"  together  with  the  man}-  plain  examples  of  believers' 
baptism,  we  cannot  think  it  possible  that  infant-baptism  could  be 
an  apostolic  practice. 

A  word  further  in  regard  to  Taj'lor's  theory  of  the  oikos,  or 
family.  Surelj^  it  is  in  vain  to  prove,  as  he  has  endeavored  to  do, 
that  oiTcos  denotes  "  the  nearest  degree  of  kindred,"  and  has 
"special  reference  to  children,"  "imports  childi-en,"  "implies 
infants,"  &c.  What  he  needed  to  proA'e  was,  that  "  house  "  al- 
ways "means  infants,"  or  "implies  infants;"  that  there,  conse- 
quently, were  infants   in  these  particular  houses,  and  that  these 


272  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

infants  were  themselves  baptized.  But  as  the  term  "  house,"  or 
"  family,"  may  or  may  not,  in  special  instances,  include  infants,  we 
can  only  conjecture  that  there  were  infants  in  these  households. 
On  such  a  conjecture  respecting  the  jailer's  house  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Heaton  bases  not  only  a  "  probable  confirmation  of  m/an^-bap- 
tism,  but  a  moral  certainty."  If  this  conjecture,  however,  were 
in  accordance  with  the  facts,  it  must  still  further  be  shown  that 
these  infants  were  by  Scripture  law  and  precept  capable  of 
receiving  Christian  baptism,  and  that  they  did  in  fact  receive  it. 
"Quamquam,"says  Matthies  ("Bap. Expo.," p.  102),  "totafamilia 
sacrse  lotioni  esse  immersa  fertur,  nihilominus  valde  dubitandum 
est,  num  in  ilia  famiha  infantes  fuerint,  numque,  iidem  infantes,  si 
affuerint,  sint  baptizati ;  "  that  is,  though  "  a  whole  family  is  said 
to  have  been  immersed,  yet  it  is  ver}'  doubtful  whether  there  were 
any  infants  in  it,  or,  if  there  were,  whether  thej  were  baptized." 
Paul,  or  some  of  his  companions,  we  will  suppose,  may  for  a  time 
have  taught  some  of  these  baptized  houses,  in  which,  we  wiU  also 
suppose,  there  may  have  been  infants.  But  would  this  prove  that 
they  actually  taught  unconscious  and  speechless  babes?  Very 
justly,  we  think,  does  Professor  Plumptre  concede  that  "  the 
mention  of  '  households  '  as  baptized  is,  at  best,  a  precarious 
foundation  for  a  wide  generalization.  If  baptism  were  thought  of 
as  limited  to  those  who  could  make  a  confession  of  faith,  it  would 
not  be  deemed  necessary  to  mention  infants  as  not  included  in  the 
'  household  '  that  was  baptized,  any  more  than  it  would  be  neces- 
sary to  except  them  if  one  were  speaking  of  a  whole  household 
going  forth  to  fight  against  the  enemy"  (see  art.  "  Children," 
in  Smith's  "  Christian  Antiquities  "). 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  273 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

INFANT-BAPTISM   AND   THE    "COMMISSION." 

WE  have  already  noticed  what  the  "  influence  theory  "  of  Dr. 
Dale  has  done  with  our  Lord's  commission  as  a  whole,  and 
the  exceedingly  blind  manner  in  which  he  derives  from  it,  or 
insinuates  into  it,  the  duty  of  infant-baptism.  "We  will  now 
attempt,  very  briefly,  to  show  how  some  other  Pedobaptist 
writers  have  extracted  from  it,  or  inserted  in  it,  their  Pedobaptistic 
theory. 

Dr.  Wall,  of  course,  finds  manj'  infants  scattered  up  and  down 
among  the  "  nations,'^  which,  or  whom,  the  apostles  were  instructed 
to  disciple,  to  baptize,  and  to  teach.  No  doubt  there  were  infants 
among  the  "  nations,"  and  so  there  were  profligate  unbelievers 
too ;  but  this  does  not  prove  that  either  class,  as  such,  were  to- 
be  baptized.  If  the  last  twelve  verses  of  Mark's  Gospel  are- 
genuine,  our  Saviour  commanded  the  apostles  to  preach  the  gos- 
pel "to  every  creature."  But  does  this  imply  the  dniy  of  actually 
proclaiming  it  to  new-born  babes,  or  to  the  lower  animals,  even^ 
as  St.  Antony  is  said  to  have  preached  to  the  fishes?  Infants,. 
indeed,  are  comprised  in  the  "  nations  ;  "  but  they  cannot  possibly 
be  taught  to  observe  aU  the  Saviour's  commands,  and  hence  there- 
can  be  no  baptized  and  instructed  infant  disciples.  Nor  can  the}'' 
properly  be  baptized  "into  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and-. 
Holy  Spirit;  "  for  this  implies  one's  professed  faith  in,  and  per- 
sonal devotedness  to,  the  Triune  God.  "To  be  baptized  in  the- 
name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  implies,"  says  Pro- 
fessor Hodge  (in  "  The  Way  of  Life"),  "  a  voluntary  dedicatiouj 
of  ourselves  to  God,  as  our  Father,  Redeemer,  and  Sanctifier." 
Neither  can  infants  in  any  proper  sense  be  made  "  disciples  "  w 
learners   of  Jesus.     But  a  "disciple,"  with  Dr.  Wall,  does  not 


274  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

always  denote  a  present  learner,  but  one  who  has  been  taught,  or 
who  is  to  be  taught  in  the  future ;  and  an  infant  disciple  is  one 
who  is  placed  in  the  school  of  Christ,  or  entered  as  a  scholar,  to 
be  taught  subsequently,  when  capable  of  recei\ing  instiniction. 
Still  he  owns  that  "learning  and  teaching  are  correlatives,"  and 
"that  the  word,  maldng  disciples.,  is  far  oftener  used  by  authors 
in  the  case  of  such  as  are  at  that  time  actually  begun  to  be 
taught;  "  and  would  also,  probabl}',  concede  that  one  is  not  com- 
monly entered  as  a  scholar  till  he  is  capable  of  learning  ;  and  that 
the  dut}^  of  teaching  the  baptized  disciple  seems,  in  the  commis- 
sion, to  follow  immediately  upon  their  baptism  ;  and  furthermore, 
that,  according  to  the  commission  as  given  in  Mark  xvi.  16,  the 
disciples  which  are  to  be  baptized  must  first  be  believers^  and,  as 
implied  in  Luke's  wording  of  the  commission  (xxiv.  47),  must  be 
penitent  believers  ;  and  that  almost  ever3'where  in  the  Xew  Testa- 
ment KEPENTAXCE  AND  FAITH  are  sct  forth  as  prerequisites  for 
baptism :  and  therefore  it  would  seem  that  even  he  could  derive 
but  a  doubtful  argument  from  the  commission  for  the  baptizing 
of  "  senseless  and  blameless  babes." 

If,  moreover,  the  Lord's  commission  makes,  without  any  ex- 
ceptions, requisition  of  repentance  and  faith,  must  not  the  issue 
be  most  sad  which  would  result  to  infants  by  including  them  in 
such  a  coromission?  For  they  most  certainly  cannot  repent,  and 
have  their  sins  remitted  thi'ough  repentance.  Nor  can  they  be- 
lieve, and  thus  be  saved  by  faith.  Must  thej'  not,  then,  if  dying 
in  infancy,  be  classed  with  the  unrepentant  and  unbeheving,  and 
thus  be  consigned  by  this  commission  to  condemnation  and  ' '  eter- 
nal sin  "  ? . 

Dr.  Leonard  Woods,  Dr.  Ralph  Wardlaw,  and  others,  following 
the  example  of  Dr.  Wall,  make  the  commission  to  include  infants 
b}'  putting  into  it  the  words  "  prosel3'te,"  or  "circumcise,"  — 
thus,  "Go,  proselyte  all  nations,  baptizing  them;"  or,  "Go, 
disciple  all  nations,  circumcising  them,"  &c.,  —  and  then  asking 
us  if  this  form  of  commission  would  not  naturally  embrace  infants. 
But  what  a  jumbUng  together  of  incongruous  elements,  —  disci- 
pling,  cu'cumcising,  teaching  !  Never  was  such  a  command  relat- 
ing to  infants  ever  heard  in  Israel.  Still  our  friends  have  to  do 
but  one  thing  to  render  the  argmnent  from  their  interpolated  com- 
mission cogent  and  con\-incing ;  and  that  is,  to  show  that  the  law 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  275 

of  proselyting  and  circumcising  was  identical  with  the  law  of 
discipling  and  baptizing, — an  undertaking,  we  should  suppose, 
which  would  be  somewhat  difficult  to  accomplish.  And  here 
we .  would  observe,  that  those  who  would  administer  infant- 
baptism  only  to  the  "  infant  seed  of  confederate  believers  "  (such 
infants  alone,  according  to  the  Westminster  Confession  and 
correct  Presbj'terianism  and  Orthodox}',  being  born  "within 
the  covenant"  and  "within  the  church,"  and  thus  entitled 
to  the  "seal  of  the  covenant"  and  to  the  badge  of  church- 
membership)  cannot,  for  certain,  derive  their  infant-baptism  from 
the  commission ;  for,  if  this  commission  embraces  one  infant 
of  the  "nations"  as  a  proper  subject  for  baptism,  it  will 
embrace  all  the  infants  of  "all  the  nations"  as  proper  subjects 
of  baptism. 

If,  as  Eev.  Alexander  Campbell,  Drs.  Stacey  and  HaUey,  and 
many  others,  maintain,  the  nations  were  to  be  discipled  by  baptiz- 
ing them,  or  by  baptizing  and  teaching,  even  this  method  of  disci- 
pling would  presuppose,  in  the  case  of  adults,  some  preparatory- 
counsel  and  instruction  prior  to  baptism,  and  perhaps  might  in- 
volve or  impty  the  requisites  of  repentance  and  faith  ;  though  to 
us  it  seems  to  accord  rather  with  the  principles  and  practices  of 
some  of  the  early  Jesuits,  who  made  disciples,  at  times,  b}^  bap- 
tizing (sprinkhng)  individuals  in  a  clandestine  or  surreptitious 
manner.  The  word  for  "them,"  however,  in  the  original  of  the 
commission,  being  preceded  b}'  the  verb  matJieteusate,  "  disciple," 
does  not  of  necessity  directly-  refer  to  "  nations  "  (with  which 
it  disagrees  in  gender,  although  this  of  itself  would  not  be 
decisive) ,  but  has  reference  to  discipled  ones  among  the  nations  ; 
that  is,  to  Christian  converts  or  believers.  And  the  idea  of  the 
commission  is,  first  make  converts  to  Christ,*  and  then  baptize  and 
teach  them.  Sa3'S  the  Eev.  N.  M.  Williams  (in  his  "Notes  on 
the  Gospel  of  Matthew,"  xxviii.  19),  "  Supposing  the  three  acts 
to  have  been  expressed  thus,  '  Go  ye,  therefore,  and,  having 
baptized  aU  nations,  disciple  them,  and  teach  them  to  observe, 
&c.,'  it  would  have  been  perfectl}^  clear  that  baptizing  should  be 
first  in  the  series.  That  would  have  been  authoritj'  enough  for 
baptizing  unregenerate  persons.  But  such  is  not  the  order  of  the 
words ;  and,  if  the  order  of  the  words  is  worth  ixwj  thing  as  a 
guide  to  the   order  of    the   acts,   then   the   first   act   should   be 


276  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

discipliug,  the  second  baptizing,  the  third  teaching."  Jerome 
right!}'  understood  the  Lord's  commission  to  His  apostles  when  he 
said,  "  Primum  docent  omnes  gentes,  deinde  doctas  intinguunt 
aqua ;  non  enim  potest  fieri  ut  corpus  recipiebat  baptismi  saora- 
mentum  nisi  ante  anima  susceperit  fidei  veritatem,"  &c. :  that  is, 
"  that  they  first  teach  all  nations,  and  then  immerse  tJie  taught  in 
water  ;  for  it  cannot  be  that  the  body  should  receive  the  sacrament 
of  baptisin  unless  the  soul  have  first  received  the  truth  of  the  faith. 
.  .  .  The  order  is  important :  He  commands  the  apostles  first  to 
teach  all  the  nations,  then  to  baptize  them  with  the  sacrament  of 
faith,  and,  after  faith  and  baptism,  to  teach  them  the  things  which 
are  to  be  observed."  Athanasius,  likewise,  maintains  the  Baptist 
doctrine,  ^'-  First  instruct,  then  baptize  ;  "  which  Stier  and  Olshau- 
sen,  and,  indeed,  all  Pedobaptists,  peremptorily  reject.  His  lan- 
guage is,  "  For  this  cause  our  Saviour  has  not  .simply  commanded 
to  baptize  ;  but  first  He  said,  '  Disciple,'  and  then  '  Baptize,'  .  .  . 
so  that  faith  might  come  from  learning,  and  the  perfecting  of  bap- 
tism be  added  to  faith."  Basil  the  Great,  in  a  chapter  whose 
opening  proposition  is,  "that  it  is  requisite  first  to  become  a 
disciple  of  the  Lord,  and  then  to  be  accounted  worthy  of  the  holy 
baptism,"  after  quoting  the  Saviour's  commission,  remarks,  "The 
Lord  commanded  first,  '  Disciple  all  the  nations  ; '  and  then  added, 
'  baptizing  them,'  &c.  .  .  .  We  have  thought  it  necessary,"  he 
says,  "to  recur  to  the  order  prescribed  by  the  Lord,  that  thus 
also,  knowing  fii'st  the  import  of  the  command  to  disciple,  then 
subsequently  receiving  the  reason  of  the  superlatively  glorious 
baptism,  ye  may  be  well  conducted  to  the  completion,  being  taught 
to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  the  Lord  commanded  His  own 
disciples."  So  in  the  apostohcal  constitutions  we  read,  "  You 
must  first  remove  from  them  all  their  ungodliness,  then  instruct 
them  in  all  godliness,  and  so  make  them  worthy  of  baptism." 
We  can,  moreover,  scarcely  think  that  any  Christian  interpreter 
would  make  the  "them  "  of  the  commission  exactly  equivalent  to 
"nations,"  or  that  any  Christian  ministers  or  missionaries  either 
would  or  COULD  baptize  nations  as  such,  and  just  as  they  are. 
Untold  numbers  among  the  nations  would  resist  the  baptism ;  and 
what  a  vast  amount  of  strength  would  be  required  to  immerse  all 
these  resisting  ones !  The  only  way  this  commission  could  be 
earned  out  would  be  to  adopt  some  "  compend,"  and  practise  it 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  277 

clandestinely,  after  the  Jesuitical  manner,  while  men  were  sleeping. 
Our  Saviour  said,  "  Go,  disciple,  or  make  disciples  of,  all  the 
nations."  The  noun  "  disciple  "  properly  means  a  learner,  schol- 
ar, or  pupil,  and  hence  a  follower  or  believer.  To  disciple  any 
one  to  Christ  necessarily  supjposes  in  such  a  disciple  both  the 
capacity  and  desire  of  receiving  instruction,  and  the  possession  of 
faith.  It  is  not  a  fulfilhng  of  the  commission  to  substitute,  as 
Stier  does  in  his  defence  of  infant-baptism  ("Words  of  Jesus," 
vol.  viii.  pp.  299-334) ,  for  the  faith  of  the  individual  to  be  bap- 
tized, the  faith  of  the  "baptizing,  receiving  church,"  or  the  faith  of 
parents  or  of  sponsors.  This  term  ' '  discipling,"  then,  must  exclude 
infants,  as  also  all  the  unbelieving  and  ungodty  (continuing  such) , 
from  the  number  of  Christ's  belie^dng  and  instructed  disciples, 
and  must,'  consequently,  debar  them  from  the  baptismal  rite.  ' '  The 
command  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19,"  says  Professor  Plumptre,  "  seems  to 
imply  capacity  for  discipleship  as  a  condition  of  baptism."  If, 
moreover,  the  first  "them"  in  the  commission  embraces  everj- 
class  and  individual  among  the  "nations,"  the  second  "them" 
must  do  so  likewise  ;  and  therefore  unconscious  babes  are  not  onlj- 
to  be  baptized,  but  to  be  taught  to  observe  all  the  Sa-vaour's  com- 
mands. Furthermore,  the  character  ascribed  to  the  "disciples" 
of  Christ  in  the  New  Testament  forbids  the  idea  that  infants  can 
be  regarded  as  "disciples."  Our  Saviour's  practice  too,  as 
indicated  in  John  iv.  1,  where  it  says  that  He  "  made  and  baptized 
more  disciples  than  John,"  teaches  us  that  making  and  baptizing 
disciples  are  widely  different  things  ;  and  this  practice  of  His  may 
well  be  allowed  to  interpret  the  law  of  His  commission.  The 
wording  of  this  commission,  as  given  in  Luke  (so  in  Mark 
substantially), — to  wit,  "that  repentance  and  remission  of  sins 
should  he  preached  in  His  name  among  all  the  nations,"  —  also 
shows  us  what  the  apostles  were  first  to  do  when  they  should 
endeavor  to  "disciple  all  the  nations."  Wholl}'  accordant  with 
these  views,  and  wholl}^  op^josed  to  the  notion  of  infant-baptism, 
are  the  above-cited  words  of  Basil :  "  It  is  requisite  Jii'st  to  become 
a  disciple  of  the  Lord,  and  then  to  be  accounted  worthy  of  the 
hol}^  baptism."  Again  he  asserts,  though  possibly  in  opposition 
to  his  own  practice,  that  "it  is  necessary  to  believe  first,  then  to 
be  sealed  with  baptism."  But,  if  the  "  them  "  of  the  commission 
embraced  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  nations,  this  would  not  prove 


278  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

that  discipling  was  baptizing,  or  was  effected  by  baptizing  ;  since 
a  participle  following  a  verb  of  command,  as  here,  or  any  finite 
verb,  is  not  always  strictly  explanatory  of  the  verb's  action. 
Carson,  to  show  that  nations  as  a  whole  were  not  to  be  baptized, 
infidels  and  all,  says  (p.  255),  "The  phraseology,  'disciple  all 
nations,  baptizing  tlievi^'  necessarily  confines  the  baptism  to  the 
l^ersons  who  shall  be  discipled.  The  antecedent  to  the  pronoun  is 
the  word  disciples,  taken,  as  grammarians  speak,  out  of  the  verb 
disciple.  The  very  nature  of  the  thing  requires  this  :  it  is  obvi- 
ously onl}^  disciples  that  they  could  baptize.  Unbelievers  would 
not  submit  to  baptism.  I  will  undertake  to  show  the  greatest 
bumpkin  in  England  that  the  restriction  is  necessarily  in  the 
expression.  '  Go,'  saj^s  a  corn-merchant  to  his  clerks,  '  buy 
all  the  grain  in  the  market,  storing  it,'  &c.  Does  any  idiot 
ask  what  grain  is  to  be  stored?  Is  it  not  the  grain  that  is 
bought,  and  not  the  grain  that  they  could  not  obtain,  or  was 
bought  b}^  others?"  We  would  use  Carson's  illustration  by 
asking  whether  the  storing  of  the  grain  would  purchase  it.  Or 
suppose  the  sentence  had  been  varied  thus  :  "A  corn-merchant 
went  to  his  clerk,  sajdng,"  &c.  Certainly  his  speaking  to 
the  clerk  would  not  convey  him  thither.  So  we  may  say,  "Go, 
build  a  house  of  worship,  using  it  for  God's  glory."  Mere 
using  it  would  not  build  it.  Or,  "  Go,  visit  the  house  of 
mourning,  comforting  it,"  &c.  The  act  of  comforting,  of  com'se, 
would  not  effect  a  conve3-ance  there.  One  of  the  patristic  church- 
canons  orders  the  baptizer  to  "  lay  his  hand  upon  the  head 
of  the  candidate,  dipping  him  three  times."  It  is  needless 
to  sa}^  that  this  hand-imposition  could  not  be  accomphshed  by 
the  dipping.  So  when  Tertullian  says,  "  Dehinc  ter  mergitamur, 
amplius  all  quid  respondentes,"  &c.,  it  is  evident  that  this  "re- 
sponding," whatever  it  may  refer  to,  could  not  effect  a  trine 
immersion.  The  participles  in  these  examples  refer  to  subse- 
quent and  different  transactions  from  those  indicated  by  the  pre- 
ceding verbs.  The  New  Testament  abounds  in  examples  of 
like  phraseology  and  import  (see  Matt.  xix.  28  ;  Luke  ^d.  35  ; 
Acts  XX.  31,  xxii.  16  ;  Rom.  xv.  25  ;  Eph.  v.  18,  seq.,  vi.  17,  18  ; 
1  Tim.  vi.  20;  Heb.  xiii.  13;  2  Pet.  ii.  5,  &c.).  Thus  we  see 
that  neither  nations  as  a  whole,  nor  infants  as  a  part  of  the 
nations,    nor,   indeed,    any   class   or  individuals    composing    the 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  279 

nations,  are  necessarily  discipled  (or  regenerated)  by  baptizing 
and  teaching  them.^ 

And  here  we  may  remark,  that  both  Calviu  on  the  one  side  of 
this  question,  and  Carson  on  the  other,  agree  in  saving,  that  in  the 
commission,  the  only  law  for  baptism  which  Christ  gave  to  the 
church,  there  is  no  reference  whatever  to  infants.  Sa^'s  Cahin 
("Institutes,"  vol.  ii.  p.  518),  "It  is  certain  that  there  is  no  men- 
tion of  any  but  those  who  are  capable  of  receiving  instruction.  .  .  . 
Is  there  even  a  single  syllable  in  the  whole  discourse  respecting 
infants?  "  To  this  Carson  agrees,  and  says,  "7/  infants  are  bap- 
tized, it  is  from  another  commission  ;  "  and  he  maintains  that  those 
' '  who  are  baptized  in  infancy,  upon  anj  pretence  whatever,  must 
be  baptized  when  they  come  to  the  faith  of  the  gospel."  "You 
may  explain,"  he  saj'^s,  "and  reason,  and  suppose;  but,  till  the 
trumpet  sounds,  you  will  never  force  this  commission  to  include 
your  baptism  of  infants.  You  may  conjure  up  difficulties  to  per- 
plex the  weak ;  your  ingenuity  may  invent  subterfuges  that  may 
cover  error :  but  you  will  never  find  an  inch  of  solid  ground  on 
which  to  rest  the  sole  of  your  foot.  Yom*  work  will  never  be  done. 
You  are  rolling  the  stone  of  Sisj^phus  ;  and  the  farther  you  push  it 
up  hill,  with  the  greater  force  will  it  rebound  on  your  own  heads. 


1  On  the  impossibility  of  discipling  by  baptizing,  Mr.  J.  Craps  (as  quoted 
in  Ingliam)  tlius  remarks:  "  The  commission  cannot  require  disciples  to  be 
made  by  baptism.  1.  Because  of  Christ's  description  of  His  disciples  (Luke 
xiv.  27,  28,  33;  John  viii.  31,  xiii.  35,  xv.  8).  2.  If  disciples  were  made 
by  baptism,  it  would  be  of  greater  importance  as  a  means  of  salvation  than 
the  preaching  of  the  gospel.  3.  Baptism  would  be  essential  to  salvation. 
4.  All  baptized  infidels  would  be  disciples  of  Christ.  5.  Christ  sent  Paul  to 
make  disciples  (Acts  xxvi.  16,  18);  yet  he  says,  '  Chi'ist  sent  me  not  to 
haptize,  but  to  preach  the  gospel.'  6.  To  the  church  at  Corinth  Paul  says, 
*In  Christ  Jesus  I  have  begotten  you  through  the  gospel.'  Yet  he  says  to 
the  same  Corinthians,  '  I  baptized  none  of  you  but  Crispus  and  Gains,'  &c. 
He  had  discipled  many  through  the  gospel ;  had  baptized  but  few.  7.  Paul 
says,  '  I  thank  God  that  I  baptized  none  of  you,'  &c.  Would  Paul  thank 
God  that  he  had  not  made  disciples  ?  8.  None  will  deny  that  Jesus  made 
disciples ;  none  will  affirm  that  Jesus  Himself  baptized.  9.  The  making 
and  the  baptizing  of  disciples  are  mentioned  as  distinct  acts  (John  iv.  1,  2). 
10.  The  disciples  the  commission  requires  to  be  made  are  real  disciples, 
'  disciples  indeed.'  It  is  impossible  to  make  such  disciples  by  baptism."  For 
a  fuller  discussion  of  these  and  other  points  relating  to  the  commission,  the 
reader  is  referred  to  K.  Ingham's  Subjects  of  Baptism,  pp.  21-48,  585-634. 


280  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

The  labors  of  Hercules  are  but  an  amusement  compared  with  your 
task.  Ingeuuit}"  m.aj  put  a  false  system  plausibly  together ;  but 
no  ingenuit}'  can  give  it  the  solidity  and  life  of  the  truth  "  (p.  174) . 
But  CaMn,  as  a  negative  argument  for  infant-baptism,  maintains, 
that,  because  the  commission  has  sole  reference  to  adults,  we 
cannot  as  logicians  say,  ^^  Therefore  it  is  unlawful  to  administer 
baptism  to  infants."  On  the  next  page,  however,  he  pulls  down 
Ms  own  structure,  when  he  argues  against  infant- communion,  which 
was  nearly  as  much  practised  in  the  ancient  church  as  infant- 
baptism.^  He  says  that  the  Lord  "  does  not  present  the  supper 
to  the  participation  of  all  alike,  but  onl}-  to  those  who  are  capable 
of  discerning  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  of  examining  their 
own  consciences,  of  showing  forth  the  Lord's  death,"  &c.  The 
communion  "must  be  preceded  by  examination,  which  would  in 
vain  be  expected  from  infants.  .  .  .  What  '  remembrance,' I  ask, 
shall  we  require  from  infants  of  that  event  of  which  they  have 
never  attained  any  knowledge?  what  preaching  of  the  cross  of 
Christ,  the  virtue  and  benefit  of  which  their  minds  are  not  j'et 
capable  of  comprehending  ?  iVbf  one  of  these  things  is  prescribed 
in  baptism."  But  are  not  infants  as  capable  of  these  things  as 
they  are  of  becoming  repentant,  believing,  instructed  disciples  of 
Christ  ?      And   against   this   whole   argumentation  how   easy   to 

1  "  There  is  almost,  if  not  altogether,  as  weighty  evidence  [from  ec- 
clesiastical history]  for  infant-communion  as  there  is  for  infant-baptism. 
It  was  the  recognized  practice  of  the  African  Church  in  the  time  of  Cyprian. 
The  Apostolical  Constitutions  show  that  it  was  also  the  custom  of  the 
East.  It  was  vehemently  urged  by  Augustine  as  essential  to  the  complete 
salvation  even  of  the  baptized,  and  was  defended  against  the  scorn  of  un- 
believers by  the  mystic  pseiido-Dionysius.  The  sacramentary  of  Gregory, 
and  the  council  of  Macon,  A.D.  588,  are  witnesses  to  its  prevalence  in  the 
churches  of  Eome  and  Gaul.  The  first  intimation  of  any  wish  to  stop  it  is 
found  in  the  third  council  of  Tours,  in  A.D.  813;  and  that  continued  in- 
operative for  nearly  three  centuries"  (Professor  E.  H.  Plumptre  in  Smith's 
Christian  Antiquities,  art.  "Children").  August!  (in  Coleman's  Christian 
Antiquities)  says,  "  The  custom  of  infant-communion  continued  for  several 
centuries.  It  is  mentioned  in  the  third  council  of  Tours,  A.D.  813;  and 
even  the  council  of  Trent  (A.D.  1545)  only  decreed  that  it  should  not  be 
considered  essential  to  salvation.  It  is  still  scrupulously  observed  by  the 
Greek  Church."  See  also  Infant-Communion,  in  Smith's  Christian  Antiqui- 
ties; and  Dr.  Chase's  Infant-Baptism  and  Infant-Communion,  in  the  Chris- 
tian Eeview  for  October,  1863,  and  his  Infant-Baptism  an  Invention  of  Men. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  281 

retort  in  Calvin's  own  words,  and  say  that  the  apostle's  instruc- 
tions concerning  the  communion  have  sole  reference  to  "persons 
of  adult  age  "  !  And  wiU  you  argue,  "  therefore  it  is  unlawful  to 
administer  the  eucharist  to  infants  ' '  ?  Certainlj'  infants  are  natu- 
rally as  capable  of  obejing  the  command,  "Take,  eat,"  as  they  are 
of  the  command,  "  Be  baptized."  And,  if  we  may  use  the  argu- 
mentum  ad  Jiominem,  cannot  those  infants  who  repent  and  beheve 
through  their  "sponsors"  also  "remember"  and  "examine" 
and  "discern"  by  means  of  the  same?  And,  furthermore,  were 
not  all  circumcised  persons,  and  only  those,  allowed  to  eat  the 
passover?  and  does  not  Christ  say,  not  onl}^  that  we  must  "be 
born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,"  but,  "  unless  ye  eat  my  flesh,  and 
drink  my  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  j'ou  "  ?  Therefore,  as  infants 
may  be  baptized,  though  from  "another  commission"  than  that 
which  Christ  gave,  so  baptized  infants  may  partake  of  the  eucha- 
rist, though  it  must  be  from  "another  commission"  than  that 
promulgated  hy  the  apostle.  An  argument,  however,  which  proves 
too  much,  is  generally  regarded  as  valueless. 

And  here  we  cannot  help  asking  whj^  it  is  that  those  who  can 
infer  the  Christian  duty  of  baptizing  male  and  female  infants  from 
the  Jewish  custom  of  ??zaZe-infaut  circumcision  can  infer  no  infant- 
communion  from  the  Jewish  passover,  of  which  "little  ones  "  of  both 
sexes  must  have  been  qualified  to  partake.  And  is  it  not  strange 
that  those  who  are  so  eloquent  in  describing  the  benefits  and  bless- 
ings of  the  baptism  of  infants  have  not  a  word  to  say  (the  Greek 
and  Eastern  churches  excepted)  in  favor  of  admitting  these  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  and  of  Christ,  these  children  of  God,  and 
inheritors  of  the  kingdom,  to  the  pri^sdleges  of  the  hoi}'  communion, 
for  the  participating  in  which  by  the  infant  seed  of  believers  there 
is,  we  must  think,  as  much  Scriptui'e  warrant  as  for  .their  baptism? 
And  is  it  not  remarkable,  too,  that  the  same  "  father,"  C3'prian, 
who  first  plainly  speaks  of  and  advocates  «?/an^-baptism  in  case 
of  necessit}',  is  the  first  one  who  makes  known  to  us  the  custom 
of  infant-communion?  and  that  Augustine  held  infant-communion, 
as  well  as  infant-baptism,  to  be  an  "  apostolical  tradition  "  ?  ^  and 


1  "Most  excellently,"  says  Augustine,  "do  the  Carthaginian  Christians 
call  baptism  itself  nothing  else  than  salvation,  and  the  sacrament  of  Chi'ist's 
body  nothing  else  than  life.    Whence  is  this,  unless  from  ancient,  as  I  think 


282  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

that,  while  there  were  remonstrances  in  the  early  church  against 
pedobaptism  and  infant-baptism,  we  never  hear  of  a  remonsti'ance 
against  infant-communion?  "That  children,"  says  Dr.  Hook, 
speaking  of  the  third  centmy ,  ' '  received  the  sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  is  ob^dous  from  what  C3'prian  relates  concerning  a 
sucking  child,  who  so  violently  refused  to  take  the  sacramental 
wine,  that  the  deacon  was  obhged  forcibly'  to  open  her  hps,  and 
pour  it  down  her  throat."  Dr.  Wall  supposes  the  girl  was  "  four 
or  five  years  old  ;  "  but  Cj'prian  (in  his  "  De  Lapsis,"  sects.  25  and 
26)  speaks  of  her  as  an  infant,  under  the  care  of  a  wet-nurse, 
and  not  j-et  able  to  speak  of  the  crime  committed  hy  others  in 
respect  of  herself.  ' '  As  the  Chui'ch  of  North  Africa  was  the  first 
to  bring  prominently  into  notice  the  necessity  of  infant-baptism, 
so  in  connection  with  this  they  introduced  also  the  communion  of 
infants  "  (Meander's  "  Ch.  Hist.,"  p.  333).  This  practice,  accord- 
ing to  Dr.  WaU,  continued  in  the  Chm-ch  "till  about  A.D.  1000, 
when  transubstantiation  sprung  up,"  and  was  then  laid  aside  in 
the  "Western  Church,  "for  fear,"  says  Jerem}- Taylor,  "  lest,  by 
puking  up  the  hoi}'  symbols,  the  sacraments  should  be  dishonored." 
Bishop  Tajior  further  saj's,  "  It  is  certain  that  in  Scripture  there  is 
nothing  which  directly  forbids  the  gi^4ng  the  holy  communion  to 
infants.  For  though  we  are  commanded  to  examine,  and  so  eat, 
3^et  this  iDrecept  is  not  of  itself  necessary',  but  b}'  reason  of  an 

(ut  existimo) ,  and  apostolic  tradition,  by  which  the  churches  of  Christ  hold 
as  a  fixed  fact,  that  without  baptism,  and  partaking  of  the  Lord's  table,  no 
one  of  mankind  can  come  either  to  the  kingdom  of  God  or  to  salvation  and 
eternal  life?"  Four  hundred  years  after  this  utterance,  Walafrid  Strabo, 
"  a  stanch  friend  of  Augustine,"  and  "  a  zealous  supporter  of  infant-bap- 
tism," thus  speaks  of  baptism  in  "  ancient"  times  :  "It  is  to  be  noted,  that, 
in  primitive  times,  the  grace  of  baptism  was  accustomed  to  be  given  only  to 
those  who,  in  body  and  mind,  had  come  to  such  maturity  as  to  be  able  to 
know  and  understand  what  benefit  is  to  be  obtained  in  baptism,  what  is 
to  be  professed,  and  what  to  be  believed,  and,  finally,  what  is  to  be  preserved 
by  the  new-born  in  Christ.  .  .  .  But,  diligence  in  the  divine  religion  increas- 
ing, the  lovers  of  Christian  dogmatics  understanding  that  the  original  sin 
of  Adam  holds  liable  to  punishment,  .  .  .  therefore  tlie  followers  of  the 
sound  faith  [took  care]  that  the  little  ones  be  baptized  for  the  remission  of 
sins,  lest  they  perish,  if  they  die  without  the  remedy  of  the  grace  of  re- 
generation "  (see  Infant-Baptism  and  Early  Church  History,  in  Christian 
Keview  for  October,  1863,  by  Professor  Irah  Chase ;  also  his  Infant-Baptism 
an  Invention  of  Men). 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  283 

introduced  cause  ;  just  as  they  are  commanded  to  believe  and  re- 
pent who  are  to  be  baptized  ;  that  is,  persons  who  need  it  and  can 
do  it,  they  must ;  and  infants  without  examination  can  as  well 
receive  the  effects  of  the  eucharist,  as,  without  repentance,  they  can 
have  the  effect  of  baptism.  .  .  .  The  primitive  Church  had  all  this 
to  justify  their  practice,  — that  the  sacraments  of  grace  are  the  gi'eat 
channels  of  the  grace  of  God ;  that  this  grace  alwaj^s  descends 
upon  them  who  do  not  hinder  it,  and  therefore  certainly  to  infants  ; 
and  some  do  expressl^^  affli'm  it,  and  none  can  with  certainty  deny, 
but  that  infants,  if  they  did  receive  the  communion,  should  also  in 
so  doing  receive  the  fruits  of  it ;  that  to  baptism  there  are  many 
acts  of  predisposition  required  as  well  as  to  the  communion,  and 
yet  the  Church,  who  very  well  understands  the  obligation  of  those 
precepts,  supposes  no  children  to  be  obliged  to  those  predispo- 
sitions to  either  sacrament,  but  fits  every  commandment  to  a 
capable  subject ;  that  there  is  something  done  on  God's  part, 
and  something  on  ours  ;  that  what  belongs  to  us  obliges  us  then, 
when  we  can  hear  and  understand,  and  not  before,  but  that  which 
is  on  God's  part  is  always  ready  to  them  that  can  receive  it ;  that 
infants,  though  they  cannot  alone  come  to  Chiist,  j^et  the  Church, 
their  mother,  can  bring  them  in  her  arms  ;  that  they  who  are  capa- 
ble of  the  grace  of  the  sacrament  may  also  receive  the  sign,  and, 
therefore,  the  same  grace,  being  conveyed  to  them  in  one  sacra- 
ment, may  also  be  imparted  to  them  in  the  other  ;  that,  as  the}'  can 
be  born  again  without  their  own  consent,  so  thej^  can  be  fed  b}'  the 
hands  of  others,  and  what  begins  without  their  own  actual  choice 
may  be  renewed  without  their  own  actual  desire  ;  and  that  there- 
fore it  may  be  feared,  lest,  if  u^Don  pretence  of  figurative  speeches, 
allegories,  and  allusions  in  the  injunction  of  certain  dispositions, 
the  holy  communion  be  denied  them,  a  gap  be  opened  upon  equal 
IDretences  to  deny  them  baptism ;  that,  since  the  Jewish  infants 
being  circumcised  is  used  as  an  argument  that  they  might  be  bap- 
tized, their  eating  of  the  paschal  lamb  may  also  be  a  competent 
warrant  to  eat  of  that  sacrament,  in  which  also,  as  in  the  other, 
the  sacrificed  lamb  is  represented  as  offered  and  slain  for  them. 
Now,  the  Church,  having  such  fair  probabilities  and  prudential  mo- 
tives, and  no  prohibition,  if  she  shall  use  her  power  to  the  purposes 
of  kindness  and  charity,  she  is  not  easilj'  to  be  reproved,  lest,  with- 
out necessity,  we  condemn  all  the  primitive  Catholic  Church  and  all 


284  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

the  modern  churches  in  the  East  and  South  to  this  day,  especially 
since  without  all  dispositions  infants  are  baptized  there  is  less 
reason  why  they  may  not  be  communicated,  having  received  some 
real  dispositions  towards  this,  even  all  the  grace  of  the  sacrament 
of  baptism,  which  is  certainly  something  towards  the  other,  and, 
after  all,  refusing  to  communicate  infants  entered  into  the  Church 
upon  an  unwarrantable  ground.  For  though  it  was  confessed  that 
the  communion  would  do  them  benefit,  j^et  it  was  denied  to  them 
then,  upon  pretence,  lest  by  puking,"  &c.  (From  Ingham's  "  Sub- 
jects of  Baptism,"  p.  386.)  We  may  add,  that  this  extract  from 
Taylor  is  taken  from  his  "Worthy  Communicant,"  and  not  from 
his  "  Liberty  of  Prophesying,"  where  he  professes  merely  to  argue 
as  he  supposed  "  the  Anabaptists  "  might  argue.  J.  P.  Lundy 
(in  his  "  Monumental  Christianity,"  p.  376)  thus  remarks  :  "  Bap- 
tism and  the  eucharist,  therefore,  are  for  infants  just  as  much  as 
for  adults  ;  and  the  eucharist  was  given  to  infants  in  the  Universal 
Church  until  the  council  of  Trent  abolished  the  practice.  Rather 
it  was  the  common  use  in  the  two  churches  of  the  East  and  West 
down  to  the  twelfth  century,  when  the  Latin  Church  began  to  dis- 
continue the  practice,  until  its  official  abolishment  by  the  council 
of  Trent  in  the  sixteenth  century.  .  .  .  [Its]  fourth  canon  is  this : 
'  Si  dixerit,  parvulis,  antequam  ad  annos  discretionis  pervenerint, 
necessarium  esse  Eucharistse  communionem  ;  anathema  sit,'  —  'If 
any  one  shall  say  that  the  communion  of  the  eucharist  is  necessary 
for  children  before  they  come  to  j^ears  of  discretion,  let  him  be 
accursed.'  The  G-reek  Church  stiU  retains  the  primitive  and  uni- 
versal practice  of  communicating  infants,  while  the  Latin  Church 
and  aU  Protestantism  are  one  in  rejecting  it.  May  it  not  be  asked, 
in  all  reason,  If  infants  are  to  receive  one  sacrament  before  they 
come  to  years  of  discretion,  why  may  they  not  receive  the  other? 
Shall  the  dogmatism  of  the  council  of  Trent  alwa^'s  suspend  and 
abolish  this  ancient  practice  in  aU  the  churches  of  the  West  ?  ' ' 

"No  one,"  says  Augustine,  "who  remembers  that  he  is  a 
Christian  of  the  Catholic  faith,  denies  or  doubts  that  little  ones 
who  have  not  received  the  grace  of  regeneration  in  Christ,  and 
have  not  partaken  of  the  Lord's  body  and  blood,  have  not  life  in 
themselves,  and  are  thus  exposed  to  everlasting  punishment." 

In  reference  to  the  decree  of  the  council  of  Trent  which  pro- 
hibited infant-communion,  Alexander  de  Stourdza,  of  the  Greek 


STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM.  285 

Church,  thus  writes  :  "  The  churches  of  the  West  have  condemned 
an  immense  majority  of  the  human  race  to  die  before  they  have 
tasted  of  the  bread  of  life  !  .  .  .  Let  them  beware  !  By  reason- 
ing in  this  way,  they  will  by  little  come  at  last  to  allow  only  the 
baptism  of  adults.'' 

"The  same  arguments,"  says  Professor  Chase,  "for  the  most 
part,  that  dispro-\'e  and  forbid  infant- communion,  disprove  and  for- 
bid infant-baptism.  And,  if  infant-communion  is  a  great  error, 
infant-baptism  is  a  still  gi'eater  error,  and  more  pernicious.  In- 
fant-communion does  not  deprive  the  child  of  the  benefits  of  com- 
munion when  he  arrives  at  the  age  of  discretion ;  but  infant- 
baptism  performed  in  his  early  infancj^  does,  so  far  as  it  is 
regarded,  prevent  his  ever  receiving  the  benefit  of  being  baptized 
upon  a -deliberate  profession  of  Ms  faith,  —  an  event  which  he  ought 
to  be  able  to  remember,  amidst  the  temptations  and  cares  of  life, 
till  he  descends  into  his  grave  with  the  well-assured  hope  of  a 
glorious  resurrection." 


286  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 

BAPTISMAL   MONUMENTS   OF   THE   EARLY   CHUKCH. 

"YTT^  propose  now,  for  a  short  time,  to  direct  our  gaze  upon 
W  some  of  the  "  vast  baptisteries  "  and  picture-baptisms  of 
the  early  Christian  Church.  The  term  "  baptisteries,"  in  general 
use,  denotes  both  the  buildings  and  their  contained  fonts  or  pools 
which  were  used  for  the  purposes  of  baptism.  As,  at  an  early  age, 
baptism  (except  in  case  of  necessity)  was  administered  but  once 
or  twice  a  year,  —  at  Easter  and  at  Pentecost,  —  and  this  too, 
commonly,  only  in  connection  with  the  mother-church  of  the  diocese, 
it  became  necessary  to  rear  large  buildings  for  this  purpose  by  the 
side  of  the  cathedral  churches.  These  structures,  generally  oc- 
tangular in  form,  were  often  very  spacious,  those  of  Florence  and 
Pisa,  for  example,  being  respectivel}^  a  hundred  and  a  hundred  and 
sixteen  feet  in  diameter  ;  capable  thus  of  accommodating  thousands 
of  persons  within  their  walls,  and  were  hence  frequently  used  for 
the  meetings  of  councils  and  other  assemblies.  Some  of  them, 
like  those  of  Parma  and  Pisa,  were  built  wholly  of  marble,  and 
were  adorned  with  all  the  magnificence  which  wealth  and  art  could 
furnish.  "We  need  to  instance  in  this  connection  only  the  sculp- 
tured bronze  doors  of  the  Florence  baptistery,  which  Michael 
Angelo  declared  to  be  worth}'  of  the  gates  of  paradise.^ 

But  what  most  concerns  us  now  is  the  size  and  capacity  of  the 
fonts  of  these  baptisteries,  many  of  which,  though  very  large, 
were  yet  hewn  out  of  solid  blocks  of  marble.  Then-  measurements 
differ  slightlj^  in  different  authors  ;  but  we  shall  mainly  follow  those 
given  by  Rev.  Wolfred  Nelson  Cote,  M.D.,  formerly  a  missionary 

1  For  a  copy  of  one  of  these  doors  see  p.  190  of  Italian  Pictures,  by  the 
Eev.  Samuel  Manning,  LL.D.,  published  by  the  Religious  Tract  Society. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  '   287 

in  Rome,  in  his  "  Archseologj'^  of  Baptism,"  published  in  London, 
1876,  and  in  his  smaller  work,  published  hy  the  American  Baptist 
Publication  Society,  entitled  "Baptism  and  Baptisteries."  The 
font  of  the  so-called  baptistery  of  Constantine,  standing  within  a 
few  j-ards  of  the  Church  of  St.  John  Lateran  (of  the  fom'th  cen- 
tury), measures  about  twenty-five  feet  in  longest  diameter,  and 
three  feet  in  depth.  Robert  G.  Hatfield  (in  "  Baptist  Quarterl}-  " 
for  July,  1869)  makes  it  "  about  twenty-eight  feet  "  in  diameter, 
and  thirt^^-two  inches  deep.  "  It  was  originally,  no  doubt,  about 
three  feet  and  a  half  deep."  Rev.  A.  J.  Rowland,  who  visited  this 
baptistery  (see  p.  152  of  "The  Baptism  of  the  Ages"),  sa^'s, 
' '  There  seemed  to  be  a  false  wooden  floor  in  the  bottom  ;  but  the 
depth,  even  with  this,  was  something  over  three  feet."  A  huge 
urn  of  green  basalt  now  rises  from  the  centre  of  the  piscina,  "  of 
sufficient  size  to  immerse  a  child  in."  Here  we  have  a  "history 
in  brick  and  stone."  First  immersion  of  adults,  then  the  immer- 
sion of  infants,  and  finallj^  the  "  few  drops,  which,  by  a  wise 
exercise  of  Christian  freedom,"  &c. 

iVe  may  here  add,  that,  according  to  Baronius  (a  not  ver}^  reliable 
authority) ,  a  baptistery  was  built  in  the  Vatican  by  Pope  Damasus, 
which  was  so  large  and  deep,  that  a  httle  boy  who  had  fallen 
therein  was  found  only  after  an  hour's  search.  Another  font  of 
the  same  age  with  that  of  St.  John  Lateran  —  that  of  the  Church 
of  Santa  Maria  Maggiore  at  Nocera  —  is  about  twenty  feet  in 
diameter  (Mr.  Hatfield  puts  it  at  seventeen) ,  and  nearly-  five  feet 
deep.  The  basin  of  the  Ravenna  baptistery  (middle  of  the  fifth 
century)  is  ten  feet  in  diameter,  and  three  feet  and  a  half  deep ; 
while  that  of  the  Arian  or  Cosmedin  baptistery,  of  the  same  place, 
is  about  eight  feet  and  a  half  in  diameter.  In  Smith's  "  Christian 
Antiquities  "it  is  stated  that  the  larger  font  at  Ravenna  has  a 
"  remarkable  semicircular  indentation  in  one  side,  in  which  the 
priest  stood  while  baptizing."  In  the  baptistery  of  Naples  a 
"  circu^lar  pavement  of  white  marble,  six  feet  eight  inches  in 
diameter,  now  covers  the  space  formerly  occupied  b}-  the  baptismal 
font. ' '  The  diameter  of  the  font  of  Citta  Nuova  is  ten  feet ; 
while  the  font  of  Novara  (both  of  the  sixth  centurj-)  is  eight  feet 
wide,  with  a  depth  of  four  feet.  In  the  baptister}-  of  Aquileja,  of 
the  same  centmy,  is  a  basin,  whose  "external  height,"  Bert oli 
says,  is  "  two  feet  and  nine  inches,  and  its  depth  is  four  feet  and  a 


288    *  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

half ;  so  that  a  man  standing  in  the  font  would  have  the  water  up 
to  his  neck.  The  church  adjoining  has  a  picture  of  baptism  by 
immersion."  The  octangular  basin  of  the  Florence  baptisterj^  (of 
the  seventh  century)  has,  or  had  before  it  was  filled  up  and  paved 
over,  a  diameter  of  twelve  feet ;  but,  according  to  Mr.  Hatfield, 
"  it  occupied  an  octangular  space  twentj'-seven  feet  in  diameter, 
now  paved  with  marble,  differing  from  the  other  pavement,  and 
surrounded  by  a  white  marble  coping,  on  which,  plainly  visible,  is 
an  inscription  designating  the  enclosed  area  as  the  place  of  the 
original  font."  "  This  font,"  as  is  stated  in  Cote's  work,  "  made 
in  1371,  was  surrounded  by  three  steps  "  (on  the  inside,  the  num- 
ber usually  found  in  fonts),  "  and  was  four  feet  and  a  half  deep. 
It  was  capable  of  containing  twelve  persons  at  the  same  time.  At 
the  alternate  angles  were  cavities,  in  which  stood  the  priests  who 
administered  the  rite  of  baptism."  Dante,  in  canto  xix.  of 
"  Inferno,"  states  that  he  broke  one  of  the  fonts  in  this  baptistery 
in  his  endeavor  "to  save  a  drowning  person."  The  large  oc- 
tangular basin  in  the  Verona  baptistery  (of  the  eighth  century)  is 
twenty-eight  feet  in  circumference,  and  four  feet  and  a  half  deep. 
Zeno,  bishop  of  Verona,  who  died  about  A.D.  390,  says,  in  his 
second  "  Invitation  to  Baptism,"  "  Hasten,  my  brethren,  to  be 
purified.  The  water,  vivified  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  rendered 
tepid  by  an  agreeable  fire,  already  invites  you  with  its  sweet 
murmur.  .  .  .  Rejoice,  therefore :  you  are  immersed  naked  in  the 
font ;  but  you  rise  again,  clothed  in  a  white  and  heavenly  garment, 
which  he  who  does  not  defile  shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
The  font  of  the  baptistery  in  Cremona  is  six  feet  in  diameter ; 
while  that  of  Padua  is  five  feet  across,  and  four  feet  deep.  The 
octagonal  basin  of  the  ' '  magnificent  baptistery  ' '  of  Pisa  is  four- 
teen feet  in  longest  diameter,  and  four  feet  deep.  Mr.  Hatfield  (in 
"  Scribner's  Monthly''  for  March,  1879)  gives  the  dimensions  as 
"  ten  feet  in  diameter,  and  three  feet  and  one-third  deep."  "  At 
the  alternate  sides  of  the  font  are  four  small  conical  basins,  which 
are  supposed  to  have  been  used  when  the  baptism  of  infants  by 
immersion  was  practised."  The  baptistery- of  Parma  contains  a 
font  "  cut  out  from  one  block  of  yellowish-red  marble.  .  .  .  It  is 
about  eight  feet  in  diameter,  four  feet  deep,  and  contains  another 
basin,  in  the  form  of  a  Greek  cross,  in  which  the  administrator 
stood  during  the  perfonnance  of  the  rite."     The  baptisterj-  of 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  289 

Pistoia,  which,  like  the  last  two  mentioned,  dates  from  the  twelfth 
centur}',  has  in  its  centre  "  a  large  square  basin,  ten  feet  in  diame- 
ter and  fom*  feet  deep,  which  can  contain  about  nine  barrels  of 
water."  Many  of  these  fonts  are  now  disused,  since  immersion, 
save  perhaps  in  Milan,  is  no  longer  practised  in  Papal  Europe ; 
and  some  of  them,  as  in  Naples  and  Florence,  are  now  paved  over, 
and  made  level  with  the  floor,  —  the  original  coping  of  the  font, 
or  an  inscription,  or  a  different  kind  of  paving,  alone  remaining  to 
tell  the  story  of  other  times.  We  may  add,  that  connected  with 
the  catacombs  of  Rome  are  also  one  or  two  baptismal  fonts,  which 
we  shall  notice  presently. 

In  company  with  Drs.  H.  C.  Fish  and  H.  Harvey  of  this  coun- 
try, we  next  visit  the  ruins  of  the  St.  John  Cathedral  at  Tyre,  and 
its  ancient  but  recently-discovered  baptistery.  The  cathedral  was 
built  about  A.D.  315,  and,  with  its  tower  "  rising  to  the  heavens," 
was  pronounced  b}''  Eusebius,  the  ecclesiastical  historian,  who 
preached  the  dedication-sermon  preserved  in  his  history,  to  be  the 
most  magnificent  temple  in  Phoenicia.  Professor  Sepp,  under  whose 
superintendence  the  excavations  were  made,  pointed  his  "sasitors 
to  the  "old  baptisterj^,"  and  remarked,  "  They  immersed  people 
here;"  and,  to  prove  the  feasibility  of  immersion,  "he  at  once 
went  down  into  it,  and  lowered  himself"  (b}-  kneeling,  and  pro- 
jecting the  head  and  shoulders  forward)  "  below  the  level  of  the 
top,  saj'ing,  '  This  is  the  way  they  baptized  themselves  '  "  (extract 
from  a  letter  of  Dr.  Fish,  dated  Tj-re,  June  3,  1874,  and  pub- 
lished, with  drawings  of  the  font,  in  "The  Watchman  and  Re- 
flector "  for  Dec.  3) .  "  The  basin,"  says  Dr.  Fish,  "  is  of  white 
marble,  in  the  shape  of  a  cross.  There  are  four  steps  at  either 
end  leading  down  into  it,  and  a  hole  is  seen  on  the  level  of  the 
floor  for  letting  out  the  water.  The  extreme  length  inside  is  five 
feet  and  six  inches ;  the  depth  is  three  feet ;  the  width,  three  feet 
and  seven  inches."  Dr.  Harvej'  gives  the  following  descriptioa 
of  the  cathedral  and  font :  "  The  ruins  of  the  old  cathedral  at 
the  north-east  angle  of  the  modern  wall  are  at  present  the  most 
interesting  in  Tyre.  The  church  was  built  by  Paulinus  earl}'  in 
the  fourth  century,  and  is  described  by  Eusebius  as  the  most 
splendid  in  Phoenicia.  It  was  two  hundred  and  sixteen  feet  long, 
one  hundred  and  thirty-six  wide,  with  nave,  transept,  and  triple 
apse.     Its  walls  are  still  partly  standing.     Its  architecture  is  of 


290  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

the  massive  and  rich  order  of  the  later  Corinthian.  Among  the 
prostrate  columns  I  observed  two  double  ones  of  red  granite, 
immense  in  size.  Here  the  great  Origen  is  buried  ;  and,  in  a  later 
age,  the  remains  of  the  celebrated  Emperor  Frederick  Barbarossa 
were  dei)osited  beside  him.  Among  other  remains  disentombed  is 
a  remarkable  baptistery,  standing  on  the  lower  floor  of  the  church, 
and  evidently  in  its  original  position.  It  is  made  from  a  solid 
block  of  white  marble,  and  is  unique  in  its  form.  Its  interior 
dimensions,  as  we  took  them,  are,  — length,  five  feet  three  inches  ; 
width,  three  feet  seven  inches  and  a  half;  depth,  three  feet  eight 
inches  and  a  quarter."  [Dr.  Harvey  writes  to  me  that  this  last 
measurement  is  possibl}^  a  misprint,  in  his  printed  letters,  as  it 
differs  from  the  measurement  (preserved  in  his  note-book)  which 
he  took  at  Tyre.  He  gives  as  the  correct  measm'ement,  original 
depth,  three  feet  two  inches  and  a  quarter ;  present  depth,  two 
feet  six  inches.]  "  Steps  descend  into  it  at  each  end.  The  can- 
didate evidently  entered  the  pool  b}'  the  steps  at  one  end :  he  then 
knelt  down,  and,  according  to  the  ancient  usage,  his  head  was 
bowed  forward  into  the  water  by  the  administrator,  who  stood 
outside,  and  pronounced  the  formula ;  and,  after  being  thus  bap- 
tized, he  passed  out  by  the  steps  at  the  other  end.  The  baptistery 
was  plainly  used  for  adult  immersion ;  for  otherwise  there  is  no 
explanation  of  the  steps.  And,  found  as  it  is  on  the  lowest  floor, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  belonged  to  the  original  church.  It 
is,  therefore,  an  interesting  monument,  attesting  the  form  of  bap- 
tism in  the  fourth  century.  The  bottom  of  the  baptistery  seems 
to  have  been  fractured  in  some  later  age,  and  is  now  repaired  by  a 
slab  of  marble,  which  somewhat  reduces  the  original  depth" 
(from  Cote's  "Archaeology  of  Baptism,"  p.  324,  seq.,  where  a 
picture  of  the  ruined  cathedral  and  of  the  font  is  given) .  Under 
this  latter  picture  the  font  is  stated  to  be  "  three  feet  deep  in  clear, 
including  false  bottom;"  and  Dr.  Fish  in  one  place  makes  the 
same  statement.^ 

1  We  svibjoin,  as  a  matter  of  curiosity,  the  statement  (copied  from  the 
Watchman  of  ISTov.  21,  1878;  see  "Discoveries  at  Ephesus,"  pp.  31,  32)  of 
Mr.  J.  T.  Wood  relative  to  a  so-called  baptismal  font  which  he  discovered 
in  the  ruins  of  Ephesus :  — 

"  Digging  in  the  forum,  I  found  on  the  east  side  what  I  believe  to  have 
been  a  baptismal  font,  —  a  large  basin  fifteen  feet  in  diameter,  raised  upon  a 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  291 

Dr.  Robinson,  when  in  Palestine,  measured  some  fonts  be- 
longing to  old  G-reek  cliurclies  now  in  ruins,  which  he  thinks 
were  too  small  for  adult  immersion.  The  measurements  which 
he  gives  of  the  fonts  of  Tekoa  and  Gophna  are  ' '  four 
feet  on  the  inside,  and  three  feet  nine  inches  deep,"  and 
"  five  feet  in  diameter,  two  feet  nine  inches  deep,  with- 
in"   (see    "Biblical   Researches,"   vol.   i.    ]).    486,    and   vol.   ii. 

pedestal,  the  basin  consisting  of  one  solid  mass  of  breccia.  This,  I  pre- 
sume, was  used  in  early  Christian  times  (beginning,  probably,  with  the  latter 
end  of  the  third  century)  for  the  public  baptism,  in  large  groups,  of  converts 
to  Christianity.  It  is  so  formed,  that  a  full-grown  person  might  without 
difficulty  climb  over  its  smooth,  rounded  edge,  and  stand  in  water  nine 
inches  deep ;  while  the  baptizer  could  stand  dry-shod  in  the  centre,  which 
was  apparently  raised  for  that  purpose.  A  water-pipe  and  the  remains  of  a 
reservoir  were  found  near  the  font.  There  is  no  hole  in  the  centre  of  the 
basin ;  as  there  must  have  been,  had  it  been  a  fountain.  A  basin  similar 
to  this  has  been  described  as  having  been  formerly  in  use  in  or  near  the 
Temple  of  Artemis,  and  this  may  be  the  one  now  found  in  the  forum.  If  I 
am  correct  in  my  conjecture  as  to  the  use  of  this  basin,  not  only  is  no  sup- 
port given  to  the  assertion  that  the  early  Christians  always  baptized  by  total 
immersion,  but  the  hypothesis  seems  to  fall  to  the  ground.  Probably  the 
mode  of  administering  this  sacrament  may  have  varied  to  suit  different 
circumstances." 

The  writer  in  the  Watchman,  Dr.  F.  Johnson,  adds,  "  Not  only  is  it 
fifteen  feet  in  diameter,  but  the  rim  is  four  feet  three  inches  above  the  pave- 
ment :  the  basin  extends  on  every  side  at  least  five  feet  from  the  pedestal 
on  which  it  rests,  and  the  centre  is  raised  a  little  higher  than  the  rim,  pre- 
senting a  surface,  perhaps  three  feet  in  diameter,  on  which  the  baptizer  is 
supposed  to  have  stood."  We  should  like  to  have  a  photograph  of  such  a 
baptismal  scene  as  Mr.  Wood  would  enact  around  and  in  this  * '  baptismal 
font,"  —  labrum  we  should  call  it,  if  we  thought  it  a  water-vessel.  Even 
now  we  can  seem  to  see  the  presbyters  with  their  flowing  baptismal  robes, 
and  the  (naked?)  catechumens,  climbing  with  some  "difficulty"  up  and 
over  this  "  smooth,  rounded "  rim  four  feet  and  a  quarter  from  the 
ground,  the  latter  taking  their  "stand  in  water  nine  inches  deep;"  while 
the  former,  by  a  desperate  effort,  jum^D  from  this  "  smooth,  rounded 
edge"  some  four  feet  across  the  intervening  water  to  the  central  dais, 
where,  standing  "dry-shod,"  they  could  perform  their  —  pouring!  Truly 
the  conjecture  of  Mr.  Wood,  that  this  basin,  found  not  in  or  near  a  church, 
but  in  the  "  forum,"  was  a  baptisterium,  or  piscina,  or  kolumbetJira,  or 
any  kind  of  a  "baptismal  font,"  is,  as  Dr.  Johnson  says,  "ridiculous." 
Dr.  Fish,  who  examined  this  "large  basin,"  says  it  is  undoubtedly  a  part 
of  an  ancient  mill,  and  is  similar  to  other  large  nether  millstones  found 
in  the  East. 


292  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

]).  263).  Dr.  G.  W.  Lasher  thus  writes  concerning  the  font 
of  Tekoa :  "  It  is  octagonal  in  form,  and  on  each  of  the  sides  is 
a  Greek  cross.  It  rises  up  some  three  feet  and  a  half  above 
the  surface  of  the  ground ;  and,  according  to  our  measurement, 
is  fortj^-six  inches  in  diameter  inside,  and  three  feet  in 
depth.  In  the  bottom  is  a  hole  for  the  escape  of  the  water, 
and  a  little  stone-lined  drain  for  carrying  off  the  water  is  still 
visible." 

One  thing  is  certain  in  regard  to  these  fonts :  they  are  abun- 
dantly ample  for  infant-immersion,  while  they  are  a  thousand  times 
too  large  for  either  adult  or  infant  sprinkling.  Our  opinion  is,  that 
smaller  fonts  than  these,  even  in  depth,  would  be  sufficiently  large 
for  adult  immersion,  if  practised  according  to  the  Dunkers'  method  ; 
viz.,  in  a  kneeling  posture,  the  subject  being  bent  forward,  instead 
of  backward. 

We  now  turn  to  look  at  the  ancient  representations  of  baptism 
as  the}'  have  come  down  to  us,  either  painted  in  fresco,  or  pictured 
in  mosaic.  And  we  ma}'  as  well  begin  with  the  oldest ;  viz.,  those 
in  the  catacombs,  or  underground  cemeteries  of  Rome.  These,  so 
far  as  we  have  seen,  are  but  four  in  number,  —  one  in  the  cemetery 
of  St.  Pontianus,  on  the  Via  Ostiensis  ;  another  in  the  cemetery  of 
St.  Pretextatus,  on  the  AppianWay ;  a  third  in  that  of  St.  Cal- 
listus,  or  Calixtus,  also  on  the  Appian  Wa}' ;  and  a  fourth  in 
St.  Lucina,  the  most  ancient  part  of  the  cemetery  of  Callistus. 
The  last  two  are,  we  believe,  commonly  regarded  as  the  oldest. 
Entering  the  Chapel  of  the  Baptistery  in  St.  Pontianus,  we  first 
observe  a  water-pool,  cut  out  of  solid  tufa.,  and  fed  by  a  li-vdng 
spring.  The  measurements  given  of  this  pool  are  widely  variant. 
C.  Taj'lor  and  S.  Fuller  tell  us  that  it  is  only  "  about  two  feet 
in  depth  and  width;"  another  authority  (Withrow)  gives  it  as 
"  thirty-six  inches  long,  thirty-two  wide,  and  forty  deep  ;  "  while 
the  author  of  the  article  "  Baptister}-,"  in  Smith's  "Christian 
Antiquities,"  saj^s  that  "the  piscina  would  appear  to  be  between 
three  and  four  feet  deep,  and  about  six  feet  across."  Cote,  in  his 
larger  work,  gives  as  its  dimensions  "  four  feet  and  a  half  in 
length,  three  feet  and  a  half  in  width,  and  three  feet  and  a  half  in 
depth."  In  view  of  these  discrepancies,  Mr.  Robert  G.  Hatfield 
of  New-York  City  twice  measured  this  baptismal  font ;  and  through 
his  kindness  we  are  permitted  to  give  our  readers  (in  an  extract 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  293 

from  "  The  Baptist  "Weekly  ")  the  exact  measurements.^  He  says, 
' '  The  baptistery  of  Ponziano,  as  now  seen,  is  a  quadrangular 
basin,  measuring  four  feet  three  inches  and  four  feet  seven  inches 
respectively  on  the  two  longer  sides,  and  three  feet  and  three  feet 
three  inches  respectivelj^  on  the  two  shorter  sides  ;  or,  on  an  aver- 
age, four  feet  five  inches  long  by  three  feet  one  inch  and  a  half 
wide.  Its  depth  varies,  owing  to  the  debris  at  the  bottom,  from 
three  feet  nine  inches  to  four  feet  eight  inches.  .  .  .  The  length 
of  this  baptismal  font  was  originally  about  six  feet  and  a  half.  In 
my  survey  of  it,  I  discovered  that  the  stone  platform  at  the  foot  of 
the  stairs  projects  over  and  covers  about  two  feet  of  the  length. 
This  platform  is  ten  inches  thick :  beneath  it  the  water  extends 
the  distance  of  two  feet  more  than  to  a  casual  observer  is  apparent. 
The  font,  therefore,  when  built  and  in  use,  was  three  feet  and  a 
third  by  six  feet  and  a  half,  and  four  feet  and  two-thirds  deep. 

"The  change  bj*  which  the  length  was  diminished  was  occasioned 
by  the  erection  of  piers  and  arches  at  the  left  and  at  the  rear,  to 
form  receptacles  for  the  remains  of  the  two  mart^a's  Abdon  and 
Senen,  which  were  deposited  here.  These  two  young  Persians 
had  been  slain  by  the  Pagans  in  the  third  centurj'',  and  by  their 
friends  secretly  buried.  When  Constantine  terminated  the  per- 
secutions of  Christians,  the  bodies  of  these  martyrs  were  removed, 


1  A  few  days  after  penning  these  lines  we  were  saddened  to  read  in  the 
Congregationalist  that  this  "  faithful  Baptist  deacon,"  a  "helper  of  all  good 
things,"  and  "a  remarkably  expert  architect,"  had  passed  on  '"into  the 
Father's  house."  In  order  that  the  statements  of  this  chapter  might  be  as 
accurate  as  possible,  the  writer  obtained  the  consent  of  Mr.  Hatfield,  whom 
he  supposed  to  be  possessed  of  more  accurate  knowledge  of  the  baptismal 
monuments  of  the  early  church  than  any  other  man  in  America,  to  look 
over  its  pages.  On  the  4th  of  February,  1879,  he  wrote  me  that  it  would 
be  quite  agreeable  to  him  to  give  this  matter  his  attention.  Shortly  after 
this  a  member  of  his  family  wrote  to  me  that  he  "  was  taken  seriously  ill ;  " 
and,  ere  the  expiration  of  the  month,  the  sad  news  arrived  tlKit  his  name 
must  henceforth  be  put  "in  the  list  of  the  starred."  The  article  in  Scrib- 
uer's  Monthly,  on  The  Old  Mill  at  Newport,  to  which  we  have  referred, 
he  did  not,  we  suppose,  live  to  see  in  type.  This  antique  relic  of  Newport, 
which  Mr.  Hatfield  describes  as  "  the  most  ancient  Christian  building  in  the 
United  States,  .  .  .  eight  centuries  old," — built  by  the  Northmen,  —  he 
has  ventured  to  christen  "the  Vinland  Baptistery"!  Let  us  be  thankful 
that  he  has  given  us  some  reason  to  suppose  our  country  to  be  possessed  of 
such  an  ancient  and  interesting  Christian  relic. 


294  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

and  placed  in  the  sepulchres  made  for  them,  as  above  stated,  over 
this  baptistery,  which  was  now  no  longer  used  ;  for  Christians,  being 
free  to  worship  above  ground,  had  built  the  large  baptistery  of  the 
Lateran,  and  others.  Hence,  in  depositing  the  remains  of  these 
two  martyrs,  they  were  not  careful  to  preserve  the  full  dimensions 
of  the  font,  nor  the  convenience  of  access  to  it  by  steps,  only  one 
of  which,  beneath  one  of  the  arches,  is  now  visible." 

Mr.  Hatfield  accounts  for  these  variations  in  measurement  "by 
supposing  that  the  writers  give  dimensions,  not  from  actual  meas- 
m-ement,  but  from  mere  judgment,  and  this  not  alwaj-s  formed 
at  the  time,  but  from  vaemorj."  Even  according  to  the  measure- 
ments given  b}'  Withrow,  this  font,  as  we  judge,  was  large  enough 
for  a  forward- sinking  or  kneehng  immersion. 

Rising  out  of  this  pool,  painted  on  the  back  wall,  is  a  gemmed 
and  floriated  cross,  bearing  on  its  arms  two  blazing  lights  above  ; 
while  from  the  same  arms  are  suspended  the  two  Greek  letters 
Alpha  and  Omega,  indicative  of  the  eternal  being  of  Christ. 
This  jewelled,  fruit-bearing,  blazing  cross  is  evidently  symbolical 
of  the  glorj^  of  Christ's  redemption.  Above  this  cross  is  the 
pictm'ed  baptism  of  Jesus.  He  is  represented  as  standing  in  the 
river,  entirely  nude,  and  up  to  His  waist  in  water.  John  stands, 
as  he  is  usuall}'  represented,  on  the  river's  bank,  nearly  nude,  with 
his  right  hand  resting  on  the  Saviour's  head.  "  I  was  particular," 
says  Mr.  Hatfield,  "to  observe  especially  the  position  of  the 
hand  of  John,  which,  it  has  been  said,  held  something  from  which 
water  was  poured  on  the  head  of  Christ.  The  hand,  with  the  palm 
downwards,  rests  upon  the  head  of  the  Saviour,  and  of  it  only  the 
thumb  and  forefinger  are  seen  ;  the  thumb,  in  contact  with  the  fore- 
head, extends  to  a  point  just  over  the  nose ;  while  the  forefinger 
reaches  to  a  point  above  the  right  e^-e.  There  is  no  cup  to  be 
seen."  On  the  opposite  bank  is  an  angel,  holding,  perhaps,  the 
Saviour's  robe,  and,  as  some  have  conjectured,  a  basin  in  his 
hand  ' '  for  pouring  water  on  the  head  of  Jesus  when  He  was 
baptized"  (Stuart),  but  what,  on  closer  inspection,  appears  to  be 
a  tablet,  inscribed  with  Hebrew  letters,  which  are  supposed  by 
some  to  designate  God  the  Father.  (See  works  of  Aringhi,  and 
others  noticed  below.  Perret,  we  observe,  gives  no  Hebrew  letters  ; 
but  his  work  is  "  more  elaborate  than  thorough,  more  highly 
finished  than  exact."    "  The  finish  of  the  plates  was  too  great  for 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  295 

the  faithful  reproduction  of  the  objects.")  It  was  a  frequent 
saving  among  the  pati-ists,  "  Go  to  the  Jordan,  and  you  will  see 
the  Trinity."  And  so,  here,  the  Holj'  Spirit  is  represented  as  a 
dove  ahghting  upon  the  head  of  the  Redeemer.  A  nimbus,  or 
circle  of  glory,  surrounds  the  heads  of  these  three  personages. 
On  the  shore  below  is  a  hart,  "panting  after  the  water-brooks." 
This  confessedly  baptismal  font  and  picture  —  "much  older," 
says  C.  Taylor,  "than  any  copy  of  the  Gospels  now  in  exist- 
ence"—  clearly  point  to  immersion,  and  as  clearly  indicate  the 
"  mode"  of  ancient  Christian  baptism.  And  j^et  writers  of  differ- 
ent views  have  endeavored  to  find  those  views  emblematized  in 
this  underground  "  chapel  of  the  baptistery."  Dr.  Dale  seems  to 
patronize  what  he  terms  "  a  very  neat  argument,"  which  aims  to 
show  that  John's  baptizing  with  water  from  a  "  measure,"  or 
vessel  of  limited  capacity,  as  represented  in  the  "  ancient  pic- 
tures," gave  rise  to  the  peculiar  phraseology^  of  John  iii.  34,  that 
"  God  giveth  not  the  Spirit"  (eJc  metrou)  "  out  of  a  measure  unto 
him."  Bishop  Kip,  in  his  "  Catacombs  of  Rome,"  says,  "  It  will 
be  observed  that  He"  (the  Saviour)  "is  portrayed  standing  in 
the  Jordan,  with  John  the  Baptist  pouring  water  on  His  head  with 
his  hand."  S.  Hutchings,  in  his  "  Mode  of  Baptism,"  sees  John 
place  his  hand  on  Jesus'  head,  "  as.  if  applying  water  thereto." 
A.  G.  Fairchild  positively  asserts  that  "  John  pours  water  on  the 
head  of  Christ."  C.  Taylor  affirms  that  "  the  action  of  the  Bap- 
tist is  clearly  that  of  pouring ; ' '  though  he  adds  that  ' '  this  will 
not  decide  whether  the  convert  did,  or  did  not,  there  receive  a 
previous  ablution.  Professor  Stuart,  however,  makes  the  Baptist's 
hand -imposition  to  be  "  an  invocation  for  a  blessing  ;  "  while  J.  P. 
Lundy,  presb3-ter,  in  his  "  Monumental  Christianit}'  "  (New  York, 
1876),  avers  that  the  Baptist's  hand  is  placed  on  Christ's  head, 
"  either  in  confirmation,  or  to  give  him  a  third  and  last  application 
of  water,"  by  which  he  means  "  a  third  and  last  plunge." 

Thus  do  learned  writers  disagree.  As  for  ourself,  we  see  in 
this  picture  neither  sprinkling,  nor  pouring,  nor  confirmation,  but 
indubitable  evidence  of  entire  immersion  in  its  ancient  mode,  by 
a  depression  of  the  candidate's  head  and  body  slightlj'  forward 
beneath  the  waters.  Those  who  can  see  in  this  fresco-baptism  the 
slightest  sign  of  pouring  have  not  sufficiently  stucHed  earl^'  Chris- 
tian history  and  Christian  antiquities.     For  copies  of  this  bap- 


296        *  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

tismal  painting  see  the  frontispiece  to  this  volume  and  to  Cote's 
"Baptism  and  Baptisteries,"  and  p.  32  of  his  "Archaeology;" 
also  Taylor's  "Apostolic  Baptism,"  p.  211;  Lundy's  "Monu- 
mental Christianity,"  pp.  62,  63  ;  Aringhi,  i.,  p.  381,  ii.,  p.  275  ; 
Ferret,  vol.  iii.,  pi.  52  and  54  ;  also  D'Agincourt,  Bottari,  Boldetti, 
Marchi,  &c. 

In  the  cemeter}^  of  St.  Pretextatus  is  the  pictured  baptism  of  a 
youth.  He  stands  entirely  nude  in  shallow  water ;  while  on  his 
right  side  stands  the  baptizer,  with  his  right  hand  resting  on  the 
lad's  head,  as  if  bending  him  forward.  This  picture  speaks  like- 
wise plainl}'  for  immersion.  (See  De  Rossi's  "  Roma  Sotteranea 
Christiana,"  vol.  ii.,  tav.  xv.  6;  also  Ferret's  "  Catacombes  de 
Rome,"  vol.  i.,  pi.  60.) 

In  the  cemeter}^  of  St.  Lucina  is  found  another  fresco-baptism 
(of  the  fom'th  or  fifth  centur}') ,  probably  of  the  Saviour,  as  a  dove 
(the  frequent  emblem  of  the  Holy  Spirit) ,  with  a  leaf  in  her  mouth, 
is  represented  as  flying  toward  the  scene.  Here  John,  nearly 
naked,  stands  on  the  bank,  having  both  hands  stretched  out,  and 
clasping  the  hands  of  Jesus,  whom  he  is  leading  out  of  the  water. 
Jesus  is  represented  as  entirely  nude,  and  nearly  up  to  His  middle 
in  water,  yet  in  the  act  of  waUdng  out  toward  the  shore.  The 
whole  action  of  the  scene  points  most  clearly  and  unmistakably 
to  immersion.  "We  have  here,"  says  Lundy,  "  another  variety 
of  the  scene  of  nude  trine-immersion  as  practised  in  the  earlier 
times  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  bordering  upon  the  daj-s  of  the 
baptism  of  Christ  in  the  Jordan."  (See  Cote's  "  Archseolog}'," 
p.  33  ;  De  Rossi,  vol.  i.,  tav.  xiv.,  p.  323,  et  seq.;  also  an  imper- 
fect woodcut  in  Northcote  and  Brownlow's  "  Roma  Sotteranea," 
p.  119  ;  and  Lundy's  "  Monumental  Christianitj',"  p.  384.) 

In  the  fresco-baptism  of  the  St.  Callistus  cemeterj'  (a  copy 
of  which  is  given  in  Cote's  "  Archseologj',"  p.  34,  and  in  Smith's 
"  Christian  Antiquities,"  p.  168  ;  see  also  De  Rossi,  vol.  ii.,  tav. 
xvi.  ;  Northcote  and  Brownlow,  pi.  xii.  ;  and  Lundy,  p.  383)  a 
youth  is  represented  as  standing  naked,  nearl^^  half-leg  deep  in  the 
water ;  while  the  baptizer' s  hand  is  resting  on  his  head.  Sur- 
rounding the  youth  there  is  seemingly  a  shower-cloud,  as  if  of 
falling  spray.  Those  persons  who  are  baptisticallj'  inclined  will 
probabl}^  regard  this  as  representing  the  streams  of  water  flowing 
from  the  head  of  the  immersed  candidate.     De  Rossi  makes  this 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  297 

picture  represent  the  baptism  of  a  youth  by  affusion ;  but  Father 
Garrucci,  in  his  recent  magnificent  illustrated  work  on  the  History 
of  Christian  Art,  asserts,  according  to  Cote,  that  "  the  youth,  quite 
naked,  is  entirely  immersed  in  a  cloud  of  water,"  and  that  "this 
bath  is  represented  bj^  streaks  of  greenish  paint  thi-own  with  a 
brush  around  the  body  and  above  the  head  of  the  person."  By 
the  side  of  this  picture  is  a  fisherman  drawing  a  fish  out  of  the  same 
water  in  which  the  candidate  stands.  Here,  of  course,  in  this 
somewhat  showery-looking  baptism,  notwithstanding  the  entire 
nudity  and  the  "  much  water,"  the  advocates  of  sprinkling  discover 
a  clear  exhibit  of  pouring!  But  J.  P.  Lundy,  presbyter,  sees 
no  pouring  in  this  specimen  of  "Monumental  Christianit}',"  but- 
says,  "  The  child  has  perhaps  had  his  third  and  last  plunge,  and  is 
receiving  confirmation."  Strange  indeed  would  it  be  were  there 
no  "plunging,"  or  immersion,  represented  in  the  picture-baptisms 
of  the  early  church,  when,  as  Hutchings  himself  concedes,  "  trine 
and  nude  immersion  was  preferred,  and  made  obligatory  by  church 
authority  as  the  regular  mode  of  baptism,  in  all  ordinary  cases, 
sa}""  for  the  first  one  thousand  years."  And  yet  this  same  author 
avers  that  in  none  of  the  picture-baptisms  of  ancient  art  is  there 
"  any  representation  of  immersion,  while  nearl}^  all  show  act 
of  pouring."  "  Not  one  "  (ancient  picture),  saj's  A.  G.  Fairchild, 
"  represents .  this  baptism  as  taking  place  by  immersion."  Pro- 
fessor Stuart  states  that  none  of  the  ancient  pictures  represent 
immersion ;  and  from  this  he  concludes  that  ' '  Christians  began 
somewhat  early  to  deflect  from  the  ancient  practice  of  immersing." 
And  Mr.  Thorn  of  England  likewise  asserts  that  the  usual  mode, 
from  the  second  century  downward,  as  evinced  by  ancient  carved 
and  painted  representations  (the  best  possible  evidence  in  such  a 
case),  was  this:  "The  candidate  stood  in  the  water  up  to  his 
ankles,  knees,  or  middle ;  and  the  minister,  from  his  hand  or  a 
vessel,  poured  the  element  on  his  head." 

Now,  though  immersion  in  its  full  act  is  perhaps  more  difficult 
to  represent  than  a  water-pouring,  jet  of  this  we  ma^^  be  sure, 
that  when  these  earlj^  Christian  artists,  in  their  rude  frescos,  placed 
a  man  entirely  nude,  waist-deep,  in  the  water,  with  the  baptizer's 
hand  resting  on  the  candidate's  head,  they  intended  to  represent 
a  total  immersion,  whatever  else  was  or  was  not  intended  to  be 
represented.    It  will  be  observed,  that,  in  the  instances  considered, 


298  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

there  is  no  patera.,  shell,  or  ladle,  in  the  administrator's  hand,  for 
pouring  purposes.  Even  in  the  pictui'e-baptism  of  St.  Callistus 
there  is  no  sign  of  hand-poming ;  while  the  adjoining  picture  of 
the  fish,  as  it  is  being  drawn  out  of  the  water  (reminding  us  of 
Tertullian's  "  we  Httle  fishes  are  born  in  the  water,"  and  of  the 
Alexandrine  Clement's  "little  children  drawn  out  of  the  water  "  ^) , 

1  We  would  observe  that  neither  TertuUian  nor  Clement  makes  any 
reference  here  to  the  baptism  of  little  children  or  infants.  The  fishes  are 
called  little,  only  in  contrast  with  the  great  IKTHUS,  a  word  meaning  fish, 
and  applied  to  Christ  (it  being  formed  by  the  initials  of  the  Greek  words, 
"Jesus  Christ,  Son  of  God,  Saviour");  and  the  children  likewise  are 
termed  little,  only  in  contrast  with  the  "Divine  Paidagogos,"  or  Great 
Teacher.  With  Clement  all  Christian  men  and  women  are  but  young 
children  (paidia)  under  the  instruction  of  the  Great  Pedagogue,  or  Divine 
Word.  In  early  Chi'istian  times,  all  neophytes,  or  newly-baptized  persons, 
of  whatever  age,  were  called  "infants:"  hence  a  mixture  of  honey  and 
milk  was  given  to  the  newly-baptized  as  being  "  babes  in  Christ,"  and 
sermons  to  the  neophytes  were  addressed  "  ad  infantes."  This  usage  in 
regard  to  the  term  "  infants  "  will  serve  to  explain  Origen's  declaration  as 
found  in  Eufinus'  translation  of  his  homily  on  Josh.  viii.  33,  "  et  tu  infans 
fuisti  in  baptismo"  ("and  thou  wast  an  infant  in  baptism"),  —  an  affirma- 
tion which  has  led  some  (Knapj),  Schaff,  &c.)  to  assert  that  Origen  was  bap- 
tized in  infancy;  which  thing  he  does  not  say.  The  ideawliich  he  meant  to 
express  is,  that  he  was  made  an  infant,  i.e.  one  of  the  Lord's  little  ones, 
by  and  in  baptism.  However  many  of  the  "  fathers  "  may  have  advocated 
infant-baptism,  regarding  it  as  necessary  to  salvation,  it  is  pretty  nearly 
certain,  that  while  several  of  them  were  consecrated,  or  dedicated  to  God,  in 
infancy  and  from  birth  (as  Augustine,  Basil,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Theoderet, 
Ephrem  Syrus,  &c. ),  yet  no  one  of  them  all,  whether  he  had  baptized 
Christian  parents  or  not,  was  himself  baptized  in  infancy.  (See  Lives  of 
Jerome,  Augustine,  Chrysostom,  Basil,  Gregory  ISfazianzen,  &c.,  in  most  of 
the  different  church  histories,  and  in  Smith's  Dictionary  of  Christian 
Biography ;  also,  on  the  other  side  of  this  question,  the  History  of  Infant- 
Baptism,  by  Dr.  Wall,  who  goes  quite  fully  into  the  "  dust  and  tediousness  " 
of  this  matter.)  When  Augustine,  being  "  a  child  not  yet  big  enough  to  go 
to  school,  but  capable  to  express  his  mind  "  (Wall),  was  seized  with  colic, 
and  expected  to  die,  his  pious  mother,  Monica,  hastened  to  prepare  for 
his  baptism;  but,  on  his  recovering  soon,  his  baptism  was  postponed. 
"Cum  quodam  die  pressus  stomachi  dolore  sestuarem  pene  moriturus, 
vidisti  Deus  mens!  quo  motu  animi  et  qua  fide  baptismum  flagitavi,  et 
conturbata  mater  curaret  festinabunda,  ut  sacramentis  salutaris  abluerer, 
nisi  statim  recreatus  essem.  Dilata  itaque  est  mundatio  mea"  !  (Confess. 
Aug.,  i.  chap.  11.)  "The  case  of  Augustine,"  says  Professor  Plumptre  (art. 
"  Children,"  in  Smith's  Christian  Antiquities),  "  shows  that  even  a  mother 
like  Monica,  acting,  it  may  be,  under  the  influence  of  the  feeling  of  which 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  299 

is  plainly  significant  of  immersion.  We  venture  to  say,  that,  in 
all  the  baptismal  pictures  of  ancient  Christianity,  there  is  not  one 
single  instance  of  mere  hand-pouring.  This,  when  necessity  did 
not  compel,  would  have  been  altogether  too  much  of  a  "  compend" 
to  have  suited  the  views  of  the  fathers.  Truthfully  does  Lundy 
aflSrm  that  "  the  concurrent  testimonj^  of  early  documents  and 
monuments  favors  nude  trine-immersion." 

The  imposition  of  hands,  we  maj'  remark,  was  a  frequent  cere- 
mony'' in  early  Christian  baptism.  Thus  Tertullian  ("  De  Corona," 
chap,  iii.)  says,  "When  we  are  about  going  to  the  water,  but  a 
little  before,  in  the  presence  of  the  congregation,  and  under  the 
Jiand  of  the  president"  (or  bishop),  "we  solemnly  profess  that 
we  disown  the  de^-il,  his  pomps  and  his  angels.  Hereupon  we 
are  thrice  immersed,"  &c.  "  Exorcism,"  as  connected  at  a  later 
jDcriod  with  this  renunciation  of  the  devil,  was  also  performed  by 
"imposition  of  hands."  In  "  De  Baptismo,"  chap,  vii.,  Tertul- 
lian also  saj's,  "  After  this,  when  we  have  issued  from  the  font  " 
{egressi  de  lavacro),  "  we  are  thoroughly  anointed  with  a  blessed 
unction,  according  to  that  ancient  rite  b}^  which  men  used  to  be 
anointed  for  the  priest's  office  with  oil  out  of  a  horn."  CjtII  of 
Jerusalem  also  asserts,  that,  as  soon  as  they  come  up  out  of  the 
sacred  waters  of  the  pool,  they  receive  the  chrism  with  the  anti- 
type  of  which  (the  Holy  Spuit)  Christ  was  anointed.  "  In  the 
next  place,"  says  TertuUian  (chap,  viii.),  "  the  hand  is  laid  upon 
us"  (deliinc  manus  imponitur)^  "invoking  and  inviting  the  Holy 
Spirit  through  the  benediction,"  &c.  "There  is  nothing,"  says 
Dr.  Wall,  ' '  more  frequently  mentioned  in  antiquity  than  this 
anointing  and  lajdng-on  of  hands  of  the  bishop  in  order  to  implore 
the  graces  of  the  Hoty  Spirit  on  the  baptized."  It  is  in  this 
hand-imposition  especially  that  J.  P.  Lund}',  presbyter,  gets  his 
confirmation  after  the  "third  plunge."    In  these  catacomb  pictures, 


TertuUian  had  been  the  spokesman,  could  postpone  her  child's  baptism  in- 
definitely, only  eager  to  hasten  it  if  there  were  any  imminent  fear  of  death. 
Even  where  baptism  was  postponed,  however,  the  child  was  claimed  for 
Christ,  was  signed  with  the  sign  of  the  cross,  and  made  to  taste  of  the  salt 
which  was  known  as  the  '  mysterium,'  or  '  sacrament,'  of  catechumens." 
Augustine  says  of  himself,  "  I  was  signed  with  the  sign  of  Christ's  cross, 
and  was  seasoned  with  his  salt,  even  from  the  womb  of  my  mother,  who 
greatly  trusted  iu  thee." 


300  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

however,  the  hand  is  placed  on  the  head,  evidentl}^  for  the  purpose 
of  immersing  the  candidate  in  water ;  and  this  was  the  usual  mode 
of  early  Christian  baptism.  (See  note  to  Chap.  XVIII.,  p.  160.) 
This  method  of  pressing  the  head  slightly  forward  and  down 
explains  the  phrases  "bowed  head,"  "bowed  face,"  "bathed 
breasts,"  &c.,  which  we  frequently  meet  with  in  the  patristic 
descriptions  of  baptism.  Our  missionary',  Dr.  Judson,  it  is  well 
known,  favored  (and  we  believe  practised)  this  forward  immer- 
sion. Thus  far,  then,  in  our  surve}^  of  the  catacomb  picture- 
baptisms,  we  have  found  nothing  decisive  against,  but  almost 
every  thing  pointing  to,  or  favorable  for,  immersion  ;  and  ma}' 
hence  boldl}'  affirm,  in  the  words  of  Dr.  S.  L.  Caldwell  ("  Baptist 
Quarterly,"  Julj^,  1870,  p.  295),  that  "the  attempt  to  banish 
Baptists  from  subterranean  Rome  cannot  succeed."  We  may 
add,  that,  thus  far,  no  pictured  example  of  infant-baptism  has 
been  found  in  the  Roman  catacombs. 

In  regard  to  the  inscriptions  in  the  catacombs  which  make  men- 
tion of  the  baptism  of  3'oung  children.  Professor  A.  N.  Arnold, 
in  an  article  on  the  "  DilBculties  of  Infant-Baptism"  ("Baptist 
Quarterly,"  1869,  p.  33),  thus  remarks:  "It  is  true  that  very 
young  children  —  even  infants  under  three  j'ears  of  age  —  are 
mentioned  as  baptized  in  a  few  of  the  inscriptions  on  these  monu- 
mental tablets.  But  there  is  no  proof  that  these  inscriptions  be- 
long, as  Dr.  Bushnell  and  others  have  assumed,  to  the  first  two  or 
three  centuries.  Most  of  them  are  without  any  means  of  deter- 
mining theu'  date.  The  date  of  some,  however,  is  determined  by 
the  names  of  the  Roman  consuls  recorded  in  them.  Of  those  of 
which  the  date  can  be  determined,  there  are  none  that  commemo- 
rate baptized  children  earlier  than  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century,  and  only  three  within  the  limits  of  that  century.  These 
three  are  dated,  respectively,  A.D.  348,  A.D.  371,  and  A.D.  374. 
In  the  first  of  these  cases  the  baptized  child  was  six  years  and 
above  eight  months  old"  [other  authorities  give  it  "^ve  j'ears, 
eight  months,  and  eleven  da^-s  "]  ;  "  and,  in  the  other  cases,  eight 
years  or  more  :  and  all  the  three  are  expressly  spoken  of  as  newly 
baptized ;  that  is,  evidently',  baptized  at  this  early  age  only  on 
account  of  the  apparent  approach  of  death.  There  are  inscrip- 
tions as  early  as  the  end  of  the  first  and  the  beginning  of  the 
second  century ;  but,  for  about  two  centuries  and  a  half  from  this 


STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM.  301 

earliest  date,  there  is  no  record  of  a  baptized  child.  Among 
about  one  hundred  epitaphs  of  children,  there  is  only  one  before  the 
year  350  that  speaks  of  the  child  as  baptized,  and  that  one  onl}' 
two  years  before  this  date ;  and  there  are  only  two  others  which 
fall  within  the  limits  of  the  fourth  century.  E^ddently  infant-bap- 
tism had  made  but  slow  progress  during  the  hundred  years  since 
Cj'prian  began  to  advocate  it  in  North  Africa  in  cases  of  necessity. 
The  facts  established  by  a  careful  examination  of  the  monumental 
inscriptions  in  the  catacombs  are  just  these  :  In  a  very  few  cases 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  century,  baptism  was  administered 
to  children  of  six  or  eight  j'ears  of  age  at  the  point  of  death. 
Even  this  child-baptism,  in  extreme  cases,  can  be  traced  no  farther 
back  than  that.  Not  a  single  case  of  strictly  ira/an^- baptism  can 
be  fairly  made  out  from  these  tablets  till  after  the  j'^ear  A.D.  400  ; 
and,  if  it  could,  it  would  not  go  to  prove  the  prevalence  of  infant- 
baptism  at  the  date  of  the  record,  but  only  the  existence  of  the 
superstitious  practice  of  baptizing  infants  that  were  apparently 
near  to  death.  The  fact  that  these  young  children  are  so  generally 
designated  as  newly  baptized,  when  there  is  any  mention  at  aU  of 
baptism,  is  yQxy  significant.  We  see  from  this  in  what  sense  they 
were  baptized  on  the  faith  of  their  parents.  They  were  not  bap- 
tized because  and  when  their  parents  believed  in  Christ ;  but  they 
were  baptized  because  their  parents  believed  baptism  indispensable 
to  their  salvation,  and  only  when  their  parents  believed  they  were 
about  to  die.  The  supporters  of  infant-baptism  must  be  hard 
pressed  for  historical  arguments  in  its  favor,  or  they  would  not 
have  recourse  to  so  damaging  an  exiDedient  as  an  appeal  to  the 
epitaphs  collected  from  the  catacombs."  (For  a  fuller  discussion 
of  this  subject  the  reader  is  referred  to  Dr.  Chase's  article  in 
"  Christian  Review  "  for  October,  1863,  pp.  550-560.) 

Similarly  favorable  for  immersion  is  the  testimony  of  the  oldest 
fresco-baptism  outside  of  the  catacombs.  We  refer  to  the  paint- 
ing, recently  discovered  (by  excavation  in  1857),  underneath  the 
present  Church  of  St.  Clement  at  Rome,  a  copy  of  which  is  given 
in  Cote's  "  Archaeology,"  p.  35,  and  in  his  "  Baptism  and  Baptis- 
teries," p.  57.  The  candidate  is,  to  appearance,  a  young  man, 
entirely  nude,  and  standing  up  to  his  middle  in  water.  The 
administrator's  right  hand  is  placed  on  his  forehead,  while  the  left 
hand  rests  on  his  shoulder  in  front ;  and,  what  is  extremely  rare, 


302  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

the  body  of  the  candidate  inclines  backward,  in  accordance  with 
our  modern  method  of  immersion.  Mr,  Cote  also  refers  to  a 
miniature  baptism  of  our  Lord  (of  the  eighth  or  ninth  century) , 
pictured  on  an  unnumbered  manuscript  in  the  Minerva  Library  at 
Eome.  "The  Redeemer  stands  in  the  water  up  to  His  waist" 
(in  "  Arcliseolog}^,"  "  up  to  His  neck  ").  "  John  places  his  right 
hand  upon  the  Saviour's  head,  and  on  the  other  side  of  the  stream 
are  ministering  angels."  Underneath  the  picture  is  this  inscrip- 
tion in  Latin :  "  Who  walked  with  LEis  feet  upon  thee  [the  water], 
and  was  baptized  by  John  into  thee  in  the  Jordan."  Robinson  (in 
his  "  History  of  Baptism,"  chap.  xvi.  p.  97,  American  edition) 
describes  a  similar  picture-baptism  of  Christ,  of  about  the  same 
age,  found  in  the  baptisterj-  of  Venice:  "In  the  river  stands 
Jesus,  naked,  the  water  nearly  up  to  His  shoulders.  On  the  left- 
hand  bank  stands  John  the  Baptist.  .  .  .  He  is  leaning  toward 
the  river  :  his  left  hand  is  just  seen  behind,  spread  open,  and  hfted 
up  ;  and  his  right  hand  is  on  the  head  of  Jesus  (dexteram  manum 
capiti  Jesu  imponit),  as  if  pressing  Him  gently  down  into  the 
water ;  while  Jesus  seems  to  be  yielding  to  the  water  under  the 
hand  of  John."  Mr.  Cote  mentions  stiU  another  picture  of 
Christ's  baptism  in  an  antique  church-book,  preserved  in  the 
sacristy  of  the  ancient  Church  of  San  Celso  at  Milan.  Bugati,  in 
his  memoir  of  St.  Celsus,  describes  the  picture  as  follows:  "The 
Redeemer  is  represented  immersed  in  water,  according  to  the 
ancient  discipline  of  the  church,  observed  for  many  centuries  in 
the  administration  of  baptism.  John  holds  in  his  left  hand  a 
curved  and  knotty  staff,  and  places  his  right  hand  upon  the 
Saviour's  head.  Finally  the  Holy  Spirit  descends  from  heaven  in 
the  form  of  a  dove.  This  scene  is  found  depicted  upon  the  most 
ancient  Christian  monuments."  From  the  water's  being  strangely 
raised  into  a  hillock.  Cote  infers  that  this  picture  must  be  a  produc- 
tion of  the  middle  ages  ;  though  Bugati  dates  it  back  as  far  as  the 
fifth  or  sixth  century.  A  picture  of  Christ's  baptism,  similar  to 
this  last,  save  that  both  Jesus  and  John  stand  nearty  waist-deep  in 
this  hillock  of  water,  is  also  to  be  found  on  p.  207  of  the  "  Archae- 
ology of  Baptism,"  and  p.  162  of  Cote's  smaller  work.  It  was 
taken  originally  from  a  bass-relief  in  the  baptister}'  of  Parma,  and 
belongs  to  the  thirteenth  centmy.  On  p.  39  of  Cote's  "  Archge- 
ology ' '  is  given  still  another  picture  of  the  baptism  of  Christ, 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  303 

taken  from  the  Greek  menologae,  or  calendar  (of  the  ninth  cen- 
tury) ,  —  one  of  the  most  valuable  manuscripts  in  the  Vatican 
Library.  Jesus  is  here  represented  as  standing  nude  in  the  river, 
and  up  to  His  shoulders  in  water ;  while  tlie  right  hand  of  John  is 
resting  on  His  head.  A  similar  picture  of  Christ's  baptism,  taken 
from  a  manuscript  of  the  tenth  century,  in  the  library  of  the 
British  Museum,  is  found  on  p.  46  of  tlie  "  Archseolog}'."  The 
Saviour  stands  nude  in  a  hillock  of  waters  reacliing  nearly  up  to 
His  shoulders,  while  John  is  placing  his  right  hand  on  the  Saviour's 
head.  A  sketch  of  the  baptism  of  the  eunuch  by  Philip  is  given 
on  p.  40  of  Cote's  larger  work.  "  The  eunuch  is  standing  up  to 
his  neck  in  a  pyramid  of  water, — the  usual  form  in  the  earliest 
representations  of  Christian  baptism.  Philip  is  clothed  in  purple 
[and  stands  outside  of  the  water].  Close  b}^,  the  two  are  seen  in  a 
chariot  with  four  horses,  driving  away  at  full  gallop'."  This  pic- 
ture is  found  in  a  Greek  psaltery  of  the  eleventh  centurj^  in  the 
Barberini  Library  at  Rome,  and  in  a  B^^zantine  manuscript  in  the 
British  Museum.  On  the  opposite  page  of  Cote's  work  is  a  picture 
from  a  manuscript  of  the  eleventh  century  (now  in  the  Bibliotheque 
NatiQnale  at  Paris)  of  the  baptism  administered  b}^  John  to  Jewish 
converts,  and  "is  interesting  from  tlae  fact  that  the  candidate  is 
represented  [in  a  perpendicular  position]  entirely  covered  with 
water."  On  pp.  42-45  of  the  "Archseology  "  Mr.  Cote  gives  refer- 
ences to  several  other  ancient  pictures  of  immersion-baptism. 

We  pass  now  to  consider  a  few  picture-baptisms  of  a  slightly 
different  stj'le  and  character.  C.  Ta^dor,  on  pp.  191,  197,  of  his 
"  ApostoHc  Baptism,"  gives  two  pictures  of  tlie  baptism  of  Christ, 
. —  the  one  from  a  brass  door-plate  of  St.  Paul's  Church,  on  the  Via 
Ostiensis,  at  Rome  ;  and  the  other  from  the  Cosmedin,  or  Aiian 
Church,  in  Ravenna.  In  both  pictures  Christ  stands  nearly  or 
quite  nude,  and  up  to  His  waist,  in  the  middle  of  the  river ;  while 
John,  who  stands  on  the  shore,  holds  in  his  right  hand  a  small 
shell,  in  the  first  picture,  over  the  shoulder,  and,  in  the  second, 
over  the  head  of  the  Saviour,  yet  without  any  exhibition  or  sign  of 
water-pouring.  We  ma}'  observe  that  Cote,  describing  these  pic- 
tures, makes  no  mention  of  a  shell,  but  states  that  John's  right  hand 
rests  on  the  "  shoulder  "  and  "  head  "  of  Jesus,  — a  statement,  we 
suspect,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  Cosmedin  picture  at  least,  want- 
ing in  entire  accuracy.     Cote  refers  to  D'Agincourt  and  Ciampini ; 


304  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

but,  as  we  have  not  been  able  to  find  these  works,  we  must  content 
ourselves  with  the  pictures  we  have  seen.  As  the  infusio  clirismatis, 
or  anointing  the  head  with  chrism,  or  consecrated  oil,  followed,  in 
earty  times,  immediatel}'  upon  immersion,  and  does  so  jet  in  the 
Greek  and  Oriental  churches,  we  are  inclined  to  believe,  with 
Lund}',  that  John  here  "  applies  the  unction,  or  confii-mation,  with 
a  small  shell,"  of  course  after  the  threefold  immersion. 

In  the  other  and  more  magnificent  baptistery  at  Ravenna,  pic- 
tured in  mosaic  on  the  great  dome  overhanging  the  font,  is  still 
another  representation  of  our  Saviour's  baptism.  A  copy  of  this 
picture  serves  as  frontispiece  to  the  afore-cited  works  of  Taylor 
and  Hutchings ;  and  is  also  given  on  p.  890  of  Smith's  "Chris- 
tian Antiquities,"  under  art.  "  Jordan."  Here,  also,  Christ  stands 
enttrel}^  nude,  and  waist-deep,  in  the  river ;  while  John,  standing 
high  on  the  bank,  holds  in  his  left  hand,  apparently,  not  the  usual 
staff,  but  a  tall,  jewelled  cross,  and  in  his  right  hand  a  bowl,  or 
shell,  from  which  water,  we  may  suppose,  is  dripping,  as  from  a 
sieve,  upon  the  Saviour's  head.  (A  like  representation  is  seen  in 
a  sculpture  of  the  fourteenth  century  on  the  southern  door  of  the 
Florence  baptister3\)  Lund}"  here  (following  Ciampini)  acknowl- 
edges a  baptism  "both  by  immersion  and  aspersion."  "  Water," 
he  says,  "was  poured  over  the  heads  of  the  immersed^  signifying 
the  cleansing  power  of  the  holy  and  heavenly-  dove  descending  in 
copious  effusion."  Referring  to  these  Ravenna  mosaics,  Rev.  Mr. 
Marriott  (p.  169  of  "  The  Christian  Antiquities  ")  thus  remarks  : 
"  It  would  seem  probable,  on  a  review  of  all  the  evidence,  that  in 
primitive  times,  while  adult  baptism  was  still  of  prevailing  usage, 
the  two  modes  hitherto  described"  (immersion  and  affusion) 
"were  combined."  ^     Cote,  however,  remarks  that  "the  mosaics 

1  In  reference  to  tliis  utterance,  President  Manly  of  Georgetown  College, 
Kentucky,  thus  remarks:  "As  to  these  ancient  affusions  which,  occurred  in 
connection  with  baptism,  we  are  not  troubled  about  them.  We  need  not 
go  further  than  our  author's  own  data  for  evidence  that  they  were  not  the 
baptismal  act,  but  an  addition  or  appendage  to  it,  which  sprung  up  in  very 
early  times,  and  which,  after  awhile,  began  to  be  accepted,  in  some  instances 
of  special  emergency,  as  a  substitute  for  the  original  ordinance,  —  a  com- 
pendious or  abridged  rite,  instead  of  that  which  Christ  appointed  and  the 
apostles  practised."  Dr.  Manly  speaks  of  the  pouring  occurring,  as  in  the 
Armenian  order  of  baptism,  after  immersion,  as  something  "subsequent, 
not  denominated  baptism,  and  evidently  designed  to  represent  the  imparta- 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  305 

of  this  baptistery  have  been  repeatedly'  restored ;  and  well-informed 
critics  are  of  opinion  that  unwarrantable  additions  and  altera- 
tions have  been  made  in  this  magnificent  work  by  incompetent 
artists.  These  restorations  have  been  rendered  necessary  by  the 
leaky  condition  of  the  cupola,  —  a  defect  which  unfortunately  still 
exists.  The  head,  right  shoulder,  and  right  arm,  of  the  Saviour 
have  been  restored,  and  also  the  head,  right  shoulder,  right  arm, 
and  right  leg  and  foot,  of  John  the  Baptist.  Thus  we  may  be 
indebted  to  a  restorer  for  the  cup  which  John  holds  in  his  right 
hand,  and  the  jewelled  cross  in  his  left ;  for,  in  every  other  paint- 
ing of  the  same  period,  he  is  represented  as  holding  a  reed  in  his 
left  hand,  and  placing  his  right  hand  on  the  Saviour's  head.  The 
mosaics  of  this  far-famed  baptistery  have,  therefore,  lost  much  of 
their  archaeological  value  in  consequence  of  these  restorations  and 
alterations."  -^  Our  opinion  is  that  there  is  here  (and  so  generall}' 
in  the  ancient  picture-baptisms)  too  much  nudity  and  too  ' '  much 
water  "  to  allow  the  baptism  to  be  any  thing  less  than  immersion, 
but  that  the  artists  here,  as  in  some  other  instances,  have  designed 
to  represent  other  things  than  simple  immersion.  We  may  sup- 
pose, also,  that  they  sometimes  painted  "to  suit  the  times"  in 

tion  of  the  Spirit,  wMcli  was  supposed  to  follow  baptism,  just  as  the  Spirit 
descended  upon  the  Saviour  as  He  was  coming  up  out  of  the  waters  of  the 
Jordan." 

1  Mr.  Cote  refers  to  Paciaudus  as  one  who,  in  his  De  Cultu.  S.  Joannis 
Baptistaj,  attributes  these  alterations  to  the  ignorance  of  the  painters. 
We  give  the  learned  Eoman  antiquary's  own  words:  "  Pr£e cursor  vasculo 
aquam  in  caput  Christi  effundit.  ...  At  qute  monstra  nuntiant  ejusmodi 
emblemata!  Numquid  Christus  Dominus  adspersione  baptizatus  ?  Tan- 
tum  abest  a  vero,  ut  nihil  magis  vero  possit  esse  contrarium;  sed  errori  et 
inscientiee  pictorum  tribuendum,  qui  quum  historiarum  sas^je  sint  ignari,  vel' 
quia  quidlibet  audendi  potestatem  sibi  factam  credunt  res,  quas  effingunt, 
mirifice  aliquando  depravant.  .  .  .  Alter  ex  altero  exemphun  sumat,  nee 
prioris  errata  posterior  apta  correctione  devitet."  ("The  Baptist  pours 
water  from  a  small  vessel  upon  Christ's  head.  .  .  .  But  what  monstrous 
notions  do  such  representations  convey!  Was  Christ  the  Lord  baptized  by 
aspersion?  So  far  is  this  from  the  truth,  that  nothing  can  be  more  contrary 
to  it.  This  thing  ought  to  be  attributed  to  the  error  and  ignorance  of  the 
painters,  who,  either  because  they  are  often  ignorant  of  history,  or  because 
they  deem  themselves  at  liberty  to  be  presumptuous  in  any  respect  they 
please,  sometimes  wonderfully  misrepresent  what  they  depict.  .  .  .  One 
follows  the  example  of  another;  and  the  latter  shuns  not,  by  proper  correc- 
tion, the  mistakes  of  the  former.") 


306  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

which  thej'  lived,  and  did  not  always  aim  faithfuU}'  to  represent 
the  ancient  observances.  Thus,  in  the  paintings  of  tlie  Last  Sup- 
per, the  disciples  are  generally  represented  as  sitting  at  the  table 
in  modern  style,  and  not  in  the  ancient  reclining  posture.  So  the 
dove,  in  almost  all  the  picture-baptisms,  is  represented  as  alighting 
upon  Jesus  when  standing  in  the  river;  while,  according  to  the 
Gospels,  the  Spirit's  descent  did  not  occur  until  after  He  came  up, 
or  while  He  was  coming  up,  out  of  the  water.  We  have  no  doubt  but 
that  this  shell-pouring  has  reference  to  the  pouring  of  the  sacred 
chiism,  and  was  designed  here  to  s^Tiibolize  the  anointing  of  the 
Holy  Si)irit.  This  picture  certainly  gives  no  countenance  to  the 
view  that  Christ  was  merely  poured  upon  or  sprinkled  in  the  Jordan, 
—  a  \'iew  which,  according  to  Chiystal,  "  is  opposed  to  the  behef 
of  the  whole  Chz'istian  world  for  the  first  twelve  hundred  years." 

We  may  here,  before  leaving  this  subject,  refer  to  two  or  three 
picture-baptisms,  where,  as  many  think,  the  "  compends  "  alone 
were  used.  We  have  seen  that  this  was  deemed  allowable  (ne- 
cessitate cogente) ,  in  cases  of  pressing  necessity,  as  early  as  the 
time  of  Cj'prian ;  and  it  would  not  be  strange  if  such  compend- 
baptisms  actually  occurred  and  were  pictm-ed  in  later  times. 
Walafrid  Strabo,  of  the  ninth  centurj^,  speaks  of  pouring  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  immersion  (si  necessitas  sit)  in  case  of  necessity,  as 
when  the  large  size  of  the  bodies  of  the  more  mature,  and  the 
small  size  of  the  font,  would  render  innnersion  impossible  (Smith's 
"  Christian  Antiquities,"  p.  171).  And  Duns  Scotus,  of  the  thir- 
teenth centur}',  says  that  trine-immersion  ma}^  be  disiDensed  with  b}' 
a  minister  in  case  he  should  be  feeble  as  to  strength,  and  there 
should  be  a  huge  country  fellow  (unus  magnus  rusticus)  to  be 
baptized  whom  he  could  neither  plunge  in  nor  hft  out.  Ciampini, 
author  of  "Vetera  Monumenta,"  &c.,  1G90,  gives  his  opinion, 
that,  "  whenever  it  was  possible,  baptism  must  be  by  immersion  ; 
but  when  there  are  no  streams  or  springs  or  other  waters  large 
enough  to  admit  of  this  mode  of  baptism,  then  the  water  was 
poured  over  the  head  of  the  candidate.  When  the  priest  bap- 
tized, he  laid  his  hand  lightly  upon  the  head  of  the  candidate  to 
intimate  that  his  whole  bodj^  had  been  plunged  under  water."  In 
this  way  he  explains  the  apparent  pouring-baptism  of  St.  Lawrence, 
a  deacon  of  Rome,  who,  as  the  story  goes,  being  about  to  die  as  a 
martyr,  baptized  by  means  of  a  water-pitcher  a  soldier  (Roma- 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  307 

nus)  that  was  to  be  one  of  Ms  executioners.  A  representation 
of  this  compend-baptism,  taken  from  the  Church  of  St.  Lauren- 
tius  of  the  twelfth  centur}',  maybe  found  on  p.  207  of  Ta3ior's 
"Apostolic  Baptism."  Mabillon  and  Basnage,  however,  regard 
this  i^icture  as  intended  to  represent  a  Greek  baptism,  where, 
beside  triu^-immersioh,  superfusion  also  is  practised.  Robinson, 
following  Mabillon,  remarks  (p.  108)  that  "  Romanus  is  repre- 
sented naked,  as  having  been  just  unmersed."  But,  if  this  was 
a  baptism  of  necessit}'',  we  ma}'  well  allow  it  to  have  been  done 
b}^  compend.  "Si  vas  haberi  non  possit,"  says  a  council  in 
A.D.  1284,  "  fundatur  aqua  super  caput  baptizandi." 

In  this  connection  we  may  refer  to  the  picture-baptism  of  the 
Lombardian  king  and  queen  Argilulfus  and  Theolinda  (or  Agilul- 
fus  and  Theodelinda) .  Both  are  represented  as  kneehng  in  a 
large  vase  or  famil}^  bath,  entirely  disrobed,  save  the  coronets  ou 
their  heads  ;  while  the  administrator,  in  a  la^'man's  dress,  is  about 
to  pour  something  from  a  pitcher  on  the  king's  head,  while  both 
his  royal  hands  are  lifted  as  in  prayer  (see  Taylor,  p.  201). 
Here,  certainly,  is  a  pouring.  But  how  ridiculous  to  strip  a  person 
stark  naked,  and  put  him  in  a  bath,  merely  to  pour  a  little  water 
on  his  head  !  Father  Mabillon  observes  that  this  represents  either 
a  Greek  baptism,  or  a  baptism  where  the  laver  was  too  small,  and 
where  the  body  was  immersed  in  the  laver,  and  the  head  was 
immersed  by  superfusion  (see  Robinson's  "Historj',"  p.  112). 
"The  artist,"  says  Robinson,  "thought,  no  doubt,  he  should  give 
a  just  notion  of  immersion  (for  he  could  mean  no  other,  as  no 
other  was  in  practice)  by  placing  the  lower  part  of  a  "  (nude) 
"person  in  water,  either  in  a  river  or  a  bath,  and  b}'  showing 
another  person  pouring  water  over  the  upper  part,  out  of  the 
water  ;  for  what  could  he  mean,  except  that  to  baptize  was  to  wet 
all  over,  to  cover  the  whole  man  with  water  ?  "  Even  Ilofling.  in 
his  "  Sakrament  der  Taufe,"  p.  51,  queries  whether  such  an  affu- 
sion is  not  more  properl}'  regarded  as  an  immersion  than  as  a 
simple  pouring.  We  suppose,  that  if  the  bath  was  too  small  for 
a  full  immersion,  or  if  such  immersion  was  omitted  for  any  other 
reason,  the  pouring  of  water  on  a  naked  subject  ma}'  have  been 
regarded,  in  case  of  necessit}^,  as  supplementing,  or  even  accom- 
plishing, the  rite  ;  the  whole  action  amounting  thus  to  a  quasi 
inmaersion.      This  principle  certainly  was  recognized  by  the  old 


308  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

Eoman  ecclesiastic  Gregory,  who,  in  defence  of  affusion  against  Mark 
of  Ephesus,  a  disputant  of  the  Greek  Church,  made  in  a  council  at 
Florence,  A.D.  1439,  this  affirmation:  "We  do  not  immerse  the 
infants'  heads  ;  for  we  cannot  teach  them  to  hold  their  breath,  nor 
prevent  water  from  going  through  their  ears,  nor  close  their  mouths. 
But  we  so  put  them  into  the  font  as  to  omit  nothing  which  is  really 
necessar}'  for  carrying  out  the  tradition"  (i.e.,  immersion,  since 
he  had  previously  stated  ' '  that  trine-immersion  was  necessary  is 
evident,  for  thus  has  it  been  handed  down  by  the  saints  to  signify 
the  three -da3-s'  burial  of  the  Lord")  ;  .  .  .  "and  that  the  head, 
the  seat  of  the  senses,  and  vehicle  of  the  soul,  ma}-  not  be 
without  hoh'  baptism,  we  take  up  water  in  the  hollow  of  the  hand, 
out  of  the  font,  and  pour  it  over,"  &c.  Not  till  the  twelfth  or 
thirteenth  century  do  we  find  evidence  of  the  existence  of  this 
custom ;  namely,  that  of  supplementing  a  partial  immersion  by 
affusion,  in  order  to  avoid  all  peril  of  the  j'oung  infant's  life. 
That  this  was  the  motive  may  be  seen  from  the  following  testi- 
mon}".  John,  bishop  of  Liittich,  A.D.  1287,  thus  writes  :  "  When 
the  baptizer  immerses  the  candidate  in  water,  he  may  say  these 
words.  .  .  .  And,  that  all  peril  to  the  one  being  baptized  may  be 
avoided,  the  head  of  the  child  may  not  be  immersed  in  water ;  but 
the  priest  xxxb.j  pour  Avater  thrice  on  the  crown  of  the  child's  head 
with  a  basin,  or  other  clean  and  fit  vessel."  And  the  council 
of  Camliray,  in  A.D.  1300,  does  but  repeat  the  same  thing.  We 
should  judge,  however,  that  the  font  in  the  picture  under  consid- 
eration was  sufficiently  large  for  the  immersion  of  the  candidates 
singly  ;  and  our  opinion  is,  to  repeat  a  former  assertion,  that  we 
have  here  too  much  of  nudity,  and  too  much  of  water,  to  allow 
of  any  baptismal  "  compend." 

We  notice,  finally,  a  somewhat  similar  picture  (in  mosaic)  in  the 
Chapel  of  St.  Pudentiana  in  Rome.  Two  nude  persons  are  in  a  huge 
family  bath,  their  legs  being  bent  up  under  them  ;  while  one  holds 
up  his  right  hand  as  in  prayer.  The  administrator,  however,  in- 
stead of  pouring,  has  his  right  hand  placed  on  the  candidate's  head. 
We  have  here  no  compend  of  baptism,  but,  according  to  Lundy, 
"nude  trine-immersion  and  confirmation  together."  We  are  not 
sure  about  this  "  confirmation."  The  picture  bears  this  inscription 
in  Latin :  "  Heke  in  the  living  font  the  dead  are  born  again." 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  309 


CHAPTER  XXX. 

INFANT-BAPTISM    IN   THE   EARLY    CHURCH. 

PE.ESSENS]fc,  in  Ms  sermon  on  Baptism,  says  tliat  a  discussion 
of  the  controverted  point,  whether  infant-baptism  reaches 
back  to  the  apostolic  age,  is  "  always  thorny."  We  hope  to 
discuss  this  matter  in  such  a  wa}^  as  shall  not  needlessly  stir  up 
or  sharpen  any  thorns  of  controversy.  Dr.  Hovey,  in  an  article 
in  "The  Baptist  Quarterty  "  for  April,  1869,  boldly  asserts  that 
' '  infant-baptism  cannot  be  shown  to  have  prevailed  in  the  Christian 
world  during  the  first  two  hundred  j-ears  after  Christ."  This,  how- 
ever, is  but  Baptist  testimony.  If  the  reader  will  turn  back  to  the 
beginning  of  Chap.  XXVI.,  he  will  see  the  concurring  testimony 
of  many  distinguished  Pedobaptist  writers  on  this  subject.  Among 
them  no  one  stands  more  eminent  than  C.  L.  Matthies,  author 
of  "  Baptismatis  Expositio,  Biblica,  Historica,  Dogmatica."  His 
words  on  this  point  are:  "  Tum  Wallus  turn  Binghamus,  invitis 
historise  testimoniis,  infantes  baptizandi  morem  ad  setatem  apos- 
tolicam  reducunt,"  &c.,  —  "  Both  Wall  and  Bingham,  in  opposition 
to  the  testimonies  of  history,  trace  the  custom  of  infant-baptism 
back  to  the  apostolic  age"  (see  sect.  20,  p.  187,  note).  And  on 
the  same  page  he  further  declares  :  ' '  Primis  duobus  sfficulis  nulla 
inveniuntur  monumeuta  quibus  evidenter  confirmari  possit,  infantes 
jam  tunc  temporis  continuo  baptismum  suscepisse,"  &c.  This 
affirmation  is  the  exact  counterpart  to  the  statement  made  b^^  Dr. 
Hovey ;  and  in  a  like  conclusion  the  most  eminent  Pedobaptist 
scholars  of  the  world  (Dr.  Dale  —  see  his  "Christie  Baptism," 
p.  340  —  and  perhaps  a  few  others  excepted)  are  now  generall}' 
agreed.  Drs.  Wall,  Hdfling,  and  others,  in  support  of  the  early 
existence  of  infant-baptism,  refer  to  Hcrmas,  Justin  Martyr,  and 
Clement  of    Alexandria.      But    Hennas'    affirmation,   that    "all 


310  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

infants  are  honored  of  the  Lord,  and  are  esteemed  first  of  all," 
and  Justin's  assertion,  that  "many  men  and  women,  sixt}^  and 
seventy  years  old,  who  were  discipled  to  Christ  from  childhood, 
remain  incorrupt,"  and  Clement's  "little  children  drawn  out  of 
the  water,"  are  now  regarded  as  having  nothing  to  do  with  the 
baptism  of  infants.  Justin  explicitly  affirms  that  the  "  saving 
bath  belongs  to  those  who  repent,"  and  is  that  "which  alone  is 
able  to  purify  those  who  have  repented."  It  is  the  "persuaded 
and  believing ' '  alone  whom  he  would  lead  to  the  ' '  laver  of  re- 
pentance." "  Wherever  Justin  refers  to  baptism,"  b&jb  Semisch, 
' '  adults  appear  as  the  objects  to  whom  the  sacred  rite  is  adminis- 
tered. Of  an  infant-baptism  he  knows  nothing."  In  regard  to 
the  words  of  Clement,  Matthies  thus  remarks:  "These  contain, 
we  doubt  not,  a  latent  reference  to  baptism  ;  yet  they  do  not  allude 
in  the  slightest  degree  to  infant-baptism  specifically.  For  before 
the  mind  of  Clement  was  Peter,  whom  Christ  made  a  'fisher  of 
men ; '  and  paiclia  [little  children]  signifies  all  men  who  are 
regenerated  hy  baptism,  drawn  out,  as  it  were,  of  an  impious  and 
wicked  life,  and  elevated  to  the  truth.  But  six  hundred  examples 
of  the  same  kind  may  be  quoted  from  the  Paidagogos,  in  which 
Clement  means  by  the  word  paidion  (opposed  to  the  '  divine 
Paidagogos ')  an}^  man  whatsoever,  without  regard  to  age,  yet  so 
that  2>ciiclia  are  disciples  whom  the  divine  Logos  leads  to  a  true 
and  holy  life." 

More  doubtful  is  the  meaning  of  Irenaeus'  assertion,  that  Christ 
"came  to  save  all  by  Himself,  —  all,  I  sa}^,  who  by  Him  are 
regenerated  to  God,  infants  and  httle  ones,  and  children  and 
j^ouths,  and  elderly  persons.  Therefore  He  passed  through  every 
age,  and  for  infants  was  made  an  infant,  sanctifjing  infants;  for 
httle  ones  He  was  made  a  little  one,  sanctifying  those  of  that  age, 
and  giving  them  an  example  of  piet}^  and  uprightness  and  obe- 
dience," &c.^    From  this  saying  of  Irenseus,  Matthies  thinks  the 

1  Omnes  enim  venit  per  semetipsum  salvare :  omnes,  inquam,  qui  per 
eum  renascuntur  in  Deum;  infantes  et  parvulos  et  pueros,  et  juvenes,  et 
seniores.  Ideo  per  omnem  venit  setatem,  et  infantibus  infans  factus,  sanc- 
tificans  infantes;  in  parvulis  parvulus  sanctificans  laanc  ipsam  iiabentes 
setatem  simul  et  exempluni  illis  pietatis  effectus  et  justitiee  et  subjectionis, 
&c.  The  Greek  of  Irenasus  is  lost,  and  the  author  of  the  Latin  version  is 
unl-oiown. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  311 

probability  is,  that  in  the  last  part  of  the  second  century,  about 
A.D.  180,  infants  were  sometimes  baptized  ("  Baptis.  Expo.," 
p.  190).  But  such  Pedobaptist  scholars  as  Hageubach,  Bohringer, 
Duncker,  and  man};"  others,  as  well  as  our  own  Professor  Chase,  all 
of  whom  have  taken  much  pains  in  the  investigation  of  Irenaeus' 
Christolog}^,  regard  this  regeneration  by  Christ  as  having  no  refer- 
ence to  baptism'.  "By  naming  Chi-ist  the  second  Adam,"  remarks 
Duncker,  "he  characterizes  Him  primarily  as  the  second  beginner 
of  the  human  race,  who  has  recapitulated  in  Himself,  has  repeated, 
saved,  and  transformed  in  Himself,  the  first  and  natural  beginning 
of  human  development.  .  .  .  Chi'ist  as  the  second  Adam  is  both 
the  deliverer  and  the  perfecter  of  the  first  Adam,  and,  with  him, 
of  the  whole  human  race,  inasmuch  as  the  first  Adam  was  the 
representative  and  real  sum  of  all  men.  He  did  not  in  His  incar- 
nation take  on  Himself  and  save  a  single  man,  but  the  universal 
man,  or  humanity ;  and  therefore,  as  the  perfect  spiritual  Adam, 
He  also  became  the  spiritual  father  and  head  of  the  race,  which, 
gathered  into  His  bosom,  was  born  again  to  the  divine  life."  The 
passage  in  Irenaeus  "only  expresses,"  says  Hagenbach,  "the 
beautiful  idea  that  Jesus  was  Redeemer  in  every  stage  of  life,  and 
for  every  stage  of  Ufe ;  but  it  does  not  say  that  He  redeemed 
children  by  the  water  of  baptism^  unless  the  term  renasci  be  inter- 
preted, b}^  the  most  arbitrary  petitio  principii^  to  refer  to  bap- 
tism." Dr.  Chase,  a  model  historical  investigator,  thus  sums  up 
his  conclusion  in  regard  to  this  passage  :  "  According  to  Irenaeus, 
Christ,  in  becoming  incarnate,  and  thus  assuming  His  mediatorial 
work,  brought  the  human  famil}'  into  a  new  relation  under  Himself, 
and  placed  them  in  a  condition  in  which  they  can  be  saved.  In 
this  sense  He  is  the  Saviour  of  all.  He  restored  them,  or  summed 
them  up  anew  in  Himself.  He  became,  so  to  speak,  a  second 
Adam,  the  regenerator  of  mankind.  Through  Him  the^^  are 
regenerated  to  God:  per  eum  renascuntur  in  Deum."  The 
passage,  he  says,  speaks  nothiug  for  baptism;  "for  the  context 
directs  our  attention  to  Christ,  and  M'hat  He  Himself  personally 
came  to  do  for  the  human  family.  It  is  b}^  Him,  and  not  by  bap- 
tism, that  they  are  here  said  to  be  renewed,  born  anew,  or  regen- 
erated" (see  art.  entitled  "Meaning  of  Irenaeus  in  the  Phrase 
Regenerated  unto  God.,^'  in  "  Bibliotheca  Sacra  "  for  November, 
1849;  since  republished  in  "Baptismal  Tracts  for  the  Times"). 


312  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

Irenseus  certainly  often  uses  tlie  term  "regeneration"  to  signify 
baptism  ;  and  in  one  passage,  at  least,  he  makes  the  commission  to 
baptize  equivalent  to  giving  the  disciples  ' '  the  power  of  regenerating 
to  God :  "  but  it  appears  e^adent  to  me,  that,  in  the  passage  before 
us,  he  explains  what  he  means  by  Christ's  regenerating  infants  unto 
God  by  the  added  clause,  "Therefore  .  .  .  for  infants  He  was 
made  an  infant,  sanctfying  infants."  We  may  remark,  that  the 
fathers  used  the  term  "  sanctified  "  nearly  as  often  as  the}'  did  the 
term  "regenerated"  to  signify  baptized.  But  it  will  not  do  to 
take  it  in  that  sense  here,  and  saj'  that  Christ  baptized  (sanctified) 
infants  by  Himself  becoming  an  infant.  No  one,  it  is  evident,  can, 
with  any  certainty,  found  pedobaptism  on  this  passage  of  Irenseus. 
Tertullian,  about  A.D.  200  (born  A.D.  160),  is  the  first  who 
plainly  speaks  of  the  baptism  of  parvuli  (little  ones)  ;  and  he  men- 
tions it  but  to  oppose  it  (see  Hofling,  p.  104).  Though  Tertullian, 
with  the  other  fathers,  connects  baptism  with  remission  of  sins, 
and  even  with  regeneration,  he  yet  insists  on  the  necessity  of  re- 
pentance and  faith  prior  to  baptism.  Unless  a  man  oflfer  the  price 
of  repentance  for  baptismal  remission,  he  does  not  deserve  "a 
single  sprinkhng  of  water."  "With  him  the  "  laver  is  the  sealing 
of  faith,  wMch  faith  is  begun  and  commended  by  a  penitent  faith. 
We  are  not  bathed  that  we  may  cease  to  sin,  since  we  are  already 
bathed  in  heart."  It  must,  however,  be  acknowledged  that  the 
apostolical  and  early  fathers  held  such  views  of  the  worth, 
efficac}",  and  necessity  of  baptism  as  would  naturallj^  lead  to 
the  early  practice  of  infant-baptism.  Manj'  of  their  paneg3Tics 
on  baptism  have  alreadj-  been  given.  We  will  here  add  a  few 
more.  The  writer  of  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  saj^s,  "We  go 
down  into  the  water  full  of  sins  and  defilement,  but  come  up 
bearing  fruit,"  &c.  "Blessed  are  they,  who,  putting  their  trust 
in  the  cross,  go  down  into  the  water."  "  Because  your  life  is  and 
shall  be  saved  by  water."  Hermas  also  affirms  that  one's  "life 
is  saved,  and  shall  be  saved,  hj  water  ;  "  and  that,  when  a  man 
"  receives  this  seal,  he  is  set  free  from  death,  and  dehvered  up  to 
life.  But  this  seal  is  wa^er,  into  which  men  go  down  devoted  to 
death,  but  come  up  assigned  to  hfe."  According  to  Hermas, 
even  the  Old-Testament  saints  and  patriarchs  had  to  be  baptized 
b}'  the  apostles  in  hades  before  the}'  could  enjo}'  the  blessings  of 
the  kingdom.     Justin  MartjT  speaks  of  baptism  as  regeneration  ; 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  313 

and,  generally  speaking,  all  the  fathers  held,  not  onty  that  the  birth 
of  water  and  of  the  Spirit  (John  iii.  5)  had  reference  to  baptism, 
but  that  there  could  be  no  birth  from  above,  no  regeneration  for 
any  one,  without  it.  Indeed,  with  them,  "  baptized  "  and  "  regen- 
erated "  were,  in  general,  equivalent  terms.  Thus,  as  we  have 
seen,  Irenseus,  in  one  place,  speaks  of  Christ's  giving  to  His  dis- 
ciples "  the  power  of  regenerating  to  God  ;  "  i.e.,  the  authority  to 
baptize.  Origen  saj^s,  that,  "  according  to  the  regeneration  of  the 
bath  {elc  loutrou),  every  one  is  free  from  uncleanness,  and  born 
from  above."  C^'prian  speaks  of  the  undm  genitalis  atixilio,  the 
water  of  regeneration,  by  whose  help  "  the  stain  of  one's  former 
life  is  cleansed  away ;  "  and  asserts,  that  "  unless  one  be  baptized, 
and  born  again,  he  cannot  come  to  the  kingdom  of  God."  Am- 
brose avers  that  "there  is  no  regeneration  without  water ;  "  and 
Gregory  Nazianzen  assures  us  that  "  there  is  not  another  regen- 
eration afterward  to  be  had,  though  it  be  sought  with  never  so 
much  crying  and  tears."  Finally,  Augustine,  who  made  infant- 
baptism  .necessarj^  to  remove  original  sin  and  that  condemnation 
which  "  came  upon  all  men,"  saj^s  that  those  who  are  not  regener- 
ated [baptized],  and  die  in  infancy,  do  fall  into  condemnation 
and  the  second  death.  "  What  Christian  man,"  he  asks,  "  can 
endure  to  hear  it  said  that  any  person  may  come  to  eternal  salva- 
tion that  is  not  regenerated  in  Christ,  which  He  has  ordered  to  be 
done  b}'  baptism?"  Such  are  some  of  the  utterances  of  the 
fathers  respecting  "baptismal  regeneration,"  —  a  doctrine  con- 
cerning which  Dr.  Owen  saj's  that  "  the  father  of  lies  could  not 
well  devise  a  more  effectual  plan  to  lead  manliind  blindfold  to 
perdition." 

We  will  now  turn  back,  and  listen  to  a  few  more  patristic  assev- 
erations regarding  the  worth  and  indispensableness  of  baptism. 
With  Justin  Mart3'r  baptism  is  spiritual  circumcision  and  "  the 
water  of  hfe."  "The  bath  is  called  illumination."  "In  the 
water"  one  obtains  "election,"  "wisdom,"  and  "remission  of 
sins."  Clement  of  Alexandria  speaks  of  "  sins  remitted  b}'  one 
healing  pJiarmako,  logikb  baptismati,  one  healing  medicine,  spirit- 
ual baptism,"  whereby  "  we  are  cleansed  as  to  all  sins,  and  are  no 
longer  evil;  "  and  holds,  as  we  have  alreadj^  seen,  that  we  are 
illuminated,  adopted,  perfected,  and  deified  by  baptism.  Tertullian 
begins  his  treatise  on  baptism,  "Felix  sacramentum  aquae  nostrae," 


814  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

&c. ,  —  "  Happy  the  sacrament  of  our  water,  whereby,  being  cleansed 
from  the  sins  of  our  former  blindness,  we  are  made  free  unto 
eternal  life.  ...  Is  it  not  wonderful  that  death  should  be  washed 
away  by  a  mere  bath?  "  "  We  enter  then  the  font  once  ;  once  are 
sins  washed  smaj.  .  .  .  Happy  water  which  once  washes  away!  " 
&c.  "  How  might}'  is  the  grace  of  water  in  the  sight  of  God  and 
His  Christ!"  He  regards  John  iii.  5  as  binding  faith  to  the 
necessity  of  baptism,  and  as  debarring  all  unbaptized  ones,  except 
martyrs,  from  salvation.  Origen  affirms  that  there  is  no  receiving 
remission  of  sins  without  baptism,  and  that  "  ever}'  kind  of  sin  is 
removed  when  we  come  to  the  saving  bath."  Cyril  of  Jerusalem 
asserts  that  the  "sting  of  death  is  removed  by  baptism."  In  the 
so-called  "  Recognitions  of  Clement  "  we  find  this  ad%T.ce  :  "Betake 
yourselves,  therefore,  to  these  waters  ;  for  the}^  alone  can  quench  the 
violence  of  the  future  fire."  Similar  to  this  is  Cj'prian's  assevera- 
tion, "  Lavacro  aquae  salutaris  gehennse  ignis  extinguitur,"  —  "In 
the  bath  of  saving  water  the  fire  of  hell  is  extinguished."  The 
deAT.1  prevails,  says  Cj'iman,  up  to  the  salutary  bath  ;  but  "  in  bap- 
tismo  omnes  nequitiae -vires  diabolus  amittat.  .  .  .  Sicut  scoi'pii  et 
serpentes  qui  in  sicco  prsevalent,  in  aquam  prsecipitati,  prsevalere 
non  possunt,  an  sua  venena  retinere,  sic  et  spiritus  nequam,"  &c.  ; 
that  is,  as  scorpions  and  serpents  prevail  on  the  land,  but  lose  all 
their  strength  and  poison  when  put  into  water,  so  the  e^-il  spirit 
loses  all  his  powers  of  wickedness  in  baptism.  At  the  somewhat 
famous  council  of  sixty-six  bishops  in  Carthage,  A.D.  253,  — 
before  which  Fidus,  a  countr}'  bishop,  submitted  a  question  which 
evidently  had  not  hitherto  been  settled  ;  namely,  whether  an  infant 
should  be  baptized  before  it  was  eight  days  old, — Cyprian,  with  the 
whole  council,  decided  that  the  law  of  circumcision  was  not,  in  one 
respect,  binding  in  the  matter  of  infant-baptism  ;  that  "the  spiritual 
circumcision  ought  not  to  be  restrained  b}'  the  carnal  circumcis- 
ion ; ' '  that  the  objection  of  Fidus  against  kissing  a  babe  in  the  first 
days  after  its  birth  was  likewise  invahd  ;  but,  "  if  need  require  " 
(see  Wall,  part  i.  chap.  xix.  sect.  17,  and  "Defence,"  edition  of 
1720,  p.  393) ,  the  second  or  third  day  was  better  than  the  eighth  for 
baptism,  nulla  anima  perdenda  (that  kg  soul  jiay  be  lost)  .  This 
one  consideration  stood  to  them  in  place  of  Scripture  and  exevy 
thing  else  as  the  reason  for  baptizing  infants  newly  born.  With 
Cyprian,  as  with  the  other  fathers,  there  was  no  salvation  without 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  315 

baptism,  the  case  of  martj-rs  only  excepted.  His  language  is, 
that  if  one  be  ever  so  upright,  3'et  do  not  receive  the  seal  of  water, 
he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem, 
making  the  same  asseveration,  saj^s,  "This  is  a  bold  speech:  but 
it  is  none  of  mine  ;  it  is  Jesus  Christ  that  has  made  this  decree." 
This  same  father  speaks  of  sins  which  have  so  wounded  the  hodj 
and  the  soul,  that  the  marks  of  the  scars  can  onl}'  be  removed  by 
baptism.  Gregory- Nazianzen  denominates  baptism  "the  rectif^T-Ug 
of  our  formation,"  "the  great  and  beautiful  phylactery,"  "the 
being  clothed  with  incorruption  and  immortalit3^"  Chr3-sostom's 
words  have  akeady  been  quoted:  "If  sudden  death  seize  us 
(which  God  forbid  !)  before  we  are  baptized,  though  we  have  ten 
thousand  virtues,  there  is  nothing  to  be  expected  but  hell,"  &c. 
"  Before  baptism,"  saj's  this  golden-mouthed  preacher,  "  there  is 
no  recei\T.ng  the  patrimon}^,  or  taking  the  inheritance.  .  .  .  With- 
out baptism,  no  one  can  be  called  a  son."  Ambrose's  averment, 
that  "  no  one  ascends  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  unless  through 
the  sacrament  of  baptism,"  is  well  known.  He  further  saj's,  that 
"  no  time  ought  to  be  void  of  the  remedy,  because  none  is  void  of 
guilt."  And  again  :  "  It  is  water,  then,  wherein  flesh  is  immersed, 
that  aU  carnal  sin  maj^  be  washed  away.  All  wickedness  is  buried 
there."  And  on  John  iii.  5  ("  Unless  one  be  born  of  water," 
&c.)  he  says,  "  You  see  He  excepts  no  person,  not  anj'  infant,  not 
an}'  one  that  is  hindered  b}"  any  necessity."  Augustine  held,  that 
without  baptism,  and  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  no  one  could 
enter  into  the  kingdom,  nor  have  eternal  life.  "  For  this  reason," 
he  sa3"S,  "  even  the  sucking  babe  is  by  its  mother  borne  with  pious 
hands  to  the  church,  that  it  ma}^  not  depart  without  baptism,  and 
die  in  the  sin  wherein  it  was  born."  He  often  speaks  of  parents 
running  with  their  infants  to  be  baptized  while  they  are  aliA'e,  lest, 
when  they  are  dead,  there  be  nothing  to  be  done.  And  arguing 
against  the  Pelagians,  who  denied  an}-  hereditar}^  taint  of  Adam's 
sin,  and  held  that  infants  dying  unbaptized  might  enjoy  a  blessed 
eternal  life  outside  the  kingdom,  he  tells  them,  "  So,  when  3'ou 
confess  the  infant  will  not  be  in  the  kingdom,  3'ou  must  acknowl- 
edge that  he  will  be  in  everlasting  fire."  Yet  Augustine  held  that 
the  damnation  of  infants  would  be  "omnium  levissima,"  "omnium 
mitissima  "  ("  the  lightest  of  all  ")  and  ("  the  mildest  of  all  ")  ; 
nor  would  he  say  respecting  such  infants,  that  it  would  have  been 


316  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

better  for  them  if  they  had  never  been  born.-^  Now,  from  the  repre- 
sentation here  given  of  the  views  and  feelings  of  the  fathers,  how 
easy  to  see  that  the  baptizing  of  children,  first,  perhaps,  the  older, 
then  the  younger,  and  finallj^,  in  case  of  necessity,  the  newly-born, 
would  naturally,  gradually,  inevitably,  creep  into  the  Church  of 
Christ!  (See  "Infant-Baptism,  its  Origin  traceable  to  the  Doc- 
trine of  Baptismal  Regeneration,"  in  "Christian  Re^dew  "  for 
January,  1861.)  Suppose,  for  example,  that  this  country,  some 
two  hundred  and  fift}"  ^^ears  ago,  was  settled  b}^  those  whom  we 
may  denominate  Baptists,  who  knew  no  other  baptism,  as  a  physi- 
cal act,  than  immersion,  who  held  that  faith  and  repentance  should 
ever  precede  and  accompau}'  baptism,  and  who  agreed  generally 
with  the  Baptists  of  to-daj'  in  "  substance  of  doctrine,"  but  that 
many  of  them,  unlike  the  Baptists,  even  then  cherished  very  high 
church  notions  of  the  efQcacy  and  general  indispensableness  of 
sacraments  and  outward  rites,  —  notions  inherited  through  a  long 
line  of  ancestry,  and  from  ages  of  religious  observance,  and  diffi- 
cult, therefore,  to  be  laid  at  once  and  whoU}' aside  ;  that  in  after 
years  and  generations  these  notions  increased  more  and  more,  and 
prevailed  greatly',  till  at  length  baptism  especially  came  to  be 
regarded  as  a  regenerating  and  sin-remitting  ordinance,  and  an 
indispensable  requisite  for  any  one's  entrance  into  the  kingdom  of 
God:  would  it  be  strange,  if,  under  these  circuinstances,  and  in 

1  Gregory  Nazianzen  was  of  the  opinion  that  those  who  "have  it  not  in 
their  power  to  receive  [baptism] ,  either  because  of  tlieir  infancy,  perhaps, 
or  by  reason  of  some  accident  utterly  involuntary,"  and  tlius  "fail  of  tlie 
gift  by  ignorance  or  constraint,"  will  be  "  neither  glorified  nor  punished  by 
the  just  Judge."  Pelagius  expressed  himself  doubtfully  as  to  the  future 
state  of  unbaptized  infants ;  for  he  says,  ' '  Whither  they  do  not  go  at  death 
I  know"  (that  is,  they  do  not  go  into  the  kingdom);  "but  whither  they 
do  go  I  know  not."  Ambrose,  speaking  of  this  unfortunate  class,  thus 
remarks :  ' '  But  suppose  they  do  obtain  a  freedom  from  punishment ;  yet 
I  question  whether  they  will  have  the  lionor  of  the  kingdom."  In  later 
times  the  scholastic  theologians,  as  a  general  thing,  assigned  to  unbaptized 
children  a  limbus  imerorwn,  where  they  miglat  suffer  indeed  the  poenam 
damni  for  original  sin,  but  not  the  more  terrible  pcznam  sensus  for  actual 
sins.  To  come  down  to  still  later  times,  Zwingle  says  of  heathen  children, 
"  Prohabilius  ut  gentium  liberi  per  ClirMmn  salventur  quam  ut  damnentiir  ;  " 
that  is,  it  is  more  probable  that  they  Avill  be  saved  through  Christ  than  that 
they  will  be  damned.  Dr.  Schaff  says  that  Bulliuger  advanced  a  similar 
view,  though  not  so  clearly. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  317 

cases  of  "pressing  necessity,"  clinic  perfusion  and  pedo-immersion, 
and  even  infant-immersion,  with  its  ever-accompanpng  and  indis- 
pensable sponsion  for  the  little  one's  faith,  together  with  the  faith 
of  the  "  baptizing,  receiving  church,"  had  by  this  time  come  into 
vogue  here  and  there,  or  even  generally,  without  creating  anj' 
general  commotion  or  alarm,  or  without  exciting  much  opposition  ? 
Had  this  occurred  in  our  age  and  country,  it  would  be,  we  suppose, 
but  a  repetition,  in  the  main,  of  the  change  in  the  observance  of 
baptism  which  took  place  in  the  history-  of  the  first  two  or  three 
centuries  of  the  Christian  Church.  Yet,  for  various  reasons,  there 
was  a  long-continued  and  persistent  opposition  to  pedobaptism  in 
the  earl}^  church.  Neander  states  in  his  "  Church  History,"  that, 
"About  the  middle  of  the  thiixl  century,  this  theory-  (of  the  un- 
conditional necessit}'  of  infant-baptism)  was  generally  admitted 
in  the  North-African  Church.  .  .  .  But,  if  the  necessity  of  infant- 
baptism  was  acknowledged  in  theor}",  it  was  still  far  from  being 
uniformly  recognized  in  practice!"  And  Guericke  states,  that, 
"  akeady  in  the  third  centurj^  the  necessity  of  infant-baptism  was 
prett}'  commonly  acknowledged  ;  but  it  was  not  until  about  the 
middle  of  the  fifth  century  that  the  exhortations  to  its  observance, 
given  hj  the  most  distinguished  church  teachers,  led,  with  the 
greatest  difficultj^  to  its  being  carried  out  in  practice  in  the  East." 
Chrj'sostom  complained  that  in  his  day  most  persons  neglected  to 
baptize  their  children.  Jerome  speaks  of  the  guilt  of  Christians 
refusing  to  give  baptism  to  their  children.  In  Augustine's  time 
and  country  it  was  a  frequent  inquiry,  "whether  the  Christian's 
child  was  a  catechumen  or  a  believer  ;  "  i.e.,  one  receiving  instruc- 
tion preparatory  to  baptism,  or  one  who  had  alread}'  been  bap- 
tized. "  Men,"  he  says,  "  also  were  wont  to  ask  what  good  the 
sacrament  of  Christ's  baptism  does  to  infants."  And  some,  it 
would  seem,  affirmed  that  "  one  that  is  born  of  Christian  parents, 
both  baptized,  ought  not"  (as  being  a  partaker  of  the  parents' 
privilege?)  "to  be  baptized."  Julian,  one  of  the  Pelagian  sect, 
who,  as  denying  original  sin,  were  commonly  supposed  to  be  not 
very  ardent,  certainly  not  ver}-  consistent  advocates  of  pedobap- 
tism, yet  avers  that  he  was  ready  to  "  allot  an  eternal,  anathema 
to  those  who  should  say  that  baptism  is  not  necessary  even  for 
infonts."  (Christian  anathemas,  it  is  well  to  recollect,  were  natu- 
rallj'  aimed,  not  at  Jews  and  Heathen,  but  against  Christians.) 


318  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

Augustine  asks,  "How  do  not  those  persons  have  even  this  in 
the  love  of  darkness,  who,  as  they  themselves  do  not  believe  " 
(this  father  terms  those  persons  unbelievers,  even  though  they 
have  the  "  sacrament  of  faith,"  who  doubt  the  sa-ving  efficacj'  of 
infant-baptism  :  see  his  Letter  to  Boniface) ,  "  so  neither  tliink  that 
their  children  are  to  be  baptized  when  they  fear  for  them  the  death 
of  the  body?  "  One  council,  at  least,  — that  at  Cartilage,  A.D. 
418, — pronounced  an  anathema  on.  those  who  deny  that  newly- 
born  infants  m.&j  be  baptized.  To  suppose,  as  Wall  does,  that  this 
anathema  was  directed  against  those,  who,  hke  Fidus,  had  scruples 
about  baptizing  infants  under  eight  daj's  old,  seems  wholly  absurd. 
So  far  as  history  tells  us,  Fidus  was  the  only  one  who  had  this 
peculiar  notion ;  and  he  is  addressed  by  Cjiorian  and  his  council  as 
frater  carissime  ("  dearest  brother  "),  whom  they  wished  (a  verj'' 
gracious  anathema)  "  always  to  enjoy  good  health."  Besides, 
infants  only  eight  days  old  can  certainly  be  called  ' '  recentes  ab 
uteris  matrum  ;  "  i.e.,  newly  born.  The  same  council  also  anathe- 
matized those  who  say  that  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  there  is  any 
place  ' '  in  which  infants  ma}"  live  in  blessedness  that  have  died 
without  baptism."  During  the  preceding  centuries,  there  seems  to 
have  been  an  almost  unaccountable  neglect  of  infant-baptism.  At 
the  great  council  held  at  Nice,  A.D.  325,  Eusebius,  who  in  his 
renowned  "  Ecclesiastical  History  "  makes  no  mention  of  infant- 
baptism,  read  a  document  before  the  Emperor  Constantine  and 
the  three  hundred  and  eighteen  bishops,  wherein  he  fairty  implies 
that  none  of  them  had  been  baptized  in  unconscious  infancy,  but 
had  received  catechetical  instruction  pre^dous  to  baptism.  His 
words,  which  we  quote  from  an  article  h-y_  Dr.  Irah  Chase  in 
"  Christian  Review  "  for  October,  1863,  p.  568  (see  also  Hofling, 
p.  212,  and  Cote's  "  Archfieology,"  p.  88),  are,  "As  we  have 
received  from  the  bishops  that  were  before  us,  both  in  the  previous 
catechetical  instruction,  and  also  when  we  received  the  laver,"  &c. 
Must  not  man}'  of  these  bishops  at  their  birth  have  had  baptized 
Christian  parents,  or  have  had,  at  least,  a  Christian  parent,  who 
could  have  procured  "sponsors"  for  the  little  ones?  If  we  go 
back  as  far  as  to  Origen,  who,  as  is  commonlj^  supposed,  held  to 
the  apostolical  origin  of  infant-baptism,  we  j'et  hear  him,  in  his 
"  Homity  on  the  Book  of  Numbers,"  using  such  language  in  his 
address  to  Christians  as  implies  the  non-existence  of  that  custom 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  319 

in  his  day.  He  saj's,  "  Recoi'detur  unusquisqiie  fidelium,"  &c.,  — 
"  Let  each  one  of  the  behevers  recall  to  mind  when  he  first  came 
to  the  waters  of  baptism,  when  he  received  the  first  symbols  of  the 
faith,  when  he  approached  the  fountain  of  salvation,  what  W'ords 
he  there  used  at  that  time,  — how  he  renounced  the  devil ;  that  he 
would  not  use  his  pomps,  nor  comply  at  all  with  any  of  his  serAices 
and  pleasures."  Let  us  now  listen  to  Basil  as  he  urges  the  dilatory 
ones  to  baptism  :  "  Do  you  demur  and  loiter,  and  put  it  off,  when 
you  have  been  from  an  infant  "  (nepios)  "  catechised  in  the  word? 
Are  3'ou  not  yet  acquainted  with  the  truth  ?  Having  been  alwa3-s 
learning,  are  you  not  yet  come  to  the  knowledge  of  it?  A  seeker 
all  your  life  long,  a  considerer  till  you  are  old,  when  will  you  be 
made  a  Christian?  "  Man}'  adults,  we  know,  put  off  baptism 
through  consciousness  of  guilt  and  unworthiness,  and  through  fear 
of  defiling  their  baptism,  since,  as  they  were  told,  this  was  their 
only  regeneration.  Others  delayed  baptism  that  they  might  live  a 
life  of  sinful  pleasure,  intending,  when  old  and  about  to  die,  to 
wash  away  all  their  sins  in  the  saving  bath,  and  thiis  enter  heaven 
pure.  But  none  of  these  reasons  will  fuU}^  account  for  the  wide 
neglect  of  m/anif-baptism.  Gregory  Nazianzen  was  as  much 
opposed  as  any  one  to  this  delaying  of  baptism  on  the  part  of 
adults,  and  he  severely  chides  them  for  their  frivolous  and  wicked 
excuses.  But  Gregory  himself,  while  he  would  baptize  infants  at 
once,  where  there  was  "  any  danger"  (for  he  says,  "It  were  better 
the}^  were  sanctified  without  their  knowing  it  than  that  thej-  should 
die  without  being  sealed  and  initiated  ") ,  yet  counsels  that  the  bap- 
tism of  strong  and  healthy  children  should  be  dela^^ed  until  ' '  the}' 
were  three  years  of  age  or  thereabouts  ;  for  then  they  are  able  to 
hear  and  answer  some  of  the  m3'stical  words  ;  and,  although  they 
do  not  fully  understand,  the}'  may  receive  impressions,  and  thus 
may  be  sanctified  both  soul  and  body  by  the  great  mystery  of 
■initiation."  "When  this  distinguished  church  theologian  was  born, 
his  father  held  the  bishop's  office,  or  at  least  was  a  baptized 
Christian ;  and  though  he  was  consecrated  to  God  by  his  pious 
mother  Nonna,  both  before  and  at  his  birth^  yet  his  baptism,  lilve 
the  baptism  of  so  many  other  church  fathers,  was  delayed  till  he 
arrived  at  years  of  maturity.  Dr.  Wall  quotes  Baxter  as  acknowl- 
edging, "  that,  in  the  days  of  Tertullian,  Nazianzen,  and  Austin, 
men  had  liberty  to  be  baptized,  or  to  bring  then-  children,  when 


320  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

and  at  what  age  thej  pleased  ;  and  none  were  forced  to  go  against 
their  consciences  therein." 

The  truth  is,  there  was,  in  the  minds  of  the  early  Christians 
generall}',  a  deep  and  ineradicable  conviction,  founded  on  God's 
word,  of  the  necessity  of  a  voluntar}^  profession  of  repentance, 
and  faith  in  baptism,  and  that  even  sponsorship  was  but  a  poor 
substitute  for  personal  faith  and  choice.  In  consequence  of  this 
feeling,  as  we  suppose,  some  persons  had  doubts  about  the  pro- 
priety of  baptizing  a  pregnant  woman,  "  lest  it  might  seem," 
as  Professor  Chase  sa3's,  "to  involve  the  baptism  of  the  child." 
Hence  a  council  held  at  Neocsesarea,  in  Asia  Minor,  A.D.  315, 
decreed  that  such  a  woman  ' '  ought  to  be  baptized  whenever  she 
pleases ;  for  in  this  matter  the  mother  communicates  nothing 
to  the  child  ' '  (the  exact  reverse  of  the  Proselyte-baptistic  view) , 
"  since  the  dehberate  purpose  in  the  profession  of  faith  is  declared 
each  one's  own."  Dr.  Chase  quotes  the  explanation  which  the 
G-reek  commentators  give  regarding  this  decision :  ' '  One  of 
these,  Balsamo  [or  Balsamon] ,  in  his  'Compendium  of  Canons,' 
says,  '  The  child  cannot  be  baptized,  because  it  is  not  yet  born, 
and  has  not  the  deliberate  purpose  of  the  profession  connected 
with  the  divineh"- appointed  baptism.'  And  another,  Zonaras, 
with  equal  clearness,  expresses  himself  thus  :  '  The  embrj'o  needs 
baptism  when  it  shall  be  able  to  have  the  deliberate  purpose.'  " 
(See  "  Christian  Review,"  October,  1863,  p.  567.)  It  is  indeed 
possible  that  these  commentators,  and  even  the  council  itself, 
supposed  that  the  new-born  infant  was  "  able  to  choose  "  by  a 
sponsor  (see  Wall's  "Histor}^"  part  i.,  chap,  viii.,  sect.  7).  Yet 
it  would  be  difficult  to  show  that  such  a  one  could  form  a  "  delib- 
erate purpose"  in  this  matter  an}^  more  than  the  embr3'o.  On 
pp.  562,  563,  of  the  same  rcA'iew,  Dr.  Chase  thus  remarks  :  "  StiU, 
in  most  parts  of  Christendom,  a  deep  impression  was  prevalent 
that  faith  was  requisite  in  order  to  be  baptized,  as  well  as 
that  baptism  was  requisite  in  order  to  be  admitted  into  heaven. 
With  such  impressions,  who  that  had  parental  affection  would 
not  have  special  desire,  who  would  not  earnestly  pray,  that  the 
dear  little  ones  might  arrive  at  that  state  in  which,  as  Origen 
expresses  it,  thej^  could  be  made  capable  of  receiving  the  grace 
of  Christ  ?  Passages  occurring  in  some  of  the  early  Christian 
writers  help  us  to  understand  the  prayers  that  were  offered  for 


STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM.  321 

the  infants,  whether  of  the  church  or  of  the  catechumens. 
These  prayers  .  .  .  are  still  found  in  the  litargical  part  of  the 
Eighth  Book  of  the  '  Constitutions.'  .  .  .  They  touch  a  tender 
chord  in  the  heart  of  the  Christian  parent,  and  shed  an  unex- 
pected light  on  the  history  of  infant-baptism.  They  show  that 
infants  were  not  baptized;  for  the  burden  of  these  praj-ers  is, 
that  the  little  ones  may  be  brought  to  such  an  age  and  state  as 
to  receive  baptism;  this  being  a  'sacrament  for  the  believers,' 
without  which  it  was  generally  supposed  none  could  inherit  the 
bliss  of  heaven."  ^ 

TertuUian,  as  we  have  said,  and,  soon  after  him,  Origen  (born 
A.D.  185,  died  253),  both  of  Africa,  were  the  first  who  make 
plain  mention  of  the  baptism  of  parvidi,  or  little  ones.  The 
former,  whom  Matthies  calls  "  acerrimus  ecclesiasticse  traditionis 
propagator,"  &c.  ("  a  most  strenuous  propagator  of  ecclesiastical 
tradition,  and  a  most  determined  foe  of  novelties,  Montanism 
excepted"),  mentions  the  baptism  of  little  ones  only  to  oppose 
it ;  ^  and,  from  his  determined  opposition,  Matthies  regards  it  as. 

1  In  the  whole  of  the  so-called  Apostolical  Constitutions  there  is  but 
one  reference,  veiy  abrupt  and  brief,  to  the  duty  of  Ijaptizing  infants.  In\ 
book  vi.,  chap.  15,  the  direction  is  given,  ''And  baptize  your  infants- 
{nepia),  and  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  God  ;  for- 
He  says,  '  Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  to  Me,  and  forbid  them  not.'  " ' 
If  this  piece  of  advice  be  genuine,  it  yet  supposes  some  opposition  to,  or- 
neglect  of,  infant-baptism  in  those  times. 

2  Tertullian's  words  are,  "  Cseterum  baptismum  non  teraere  credendum. 
esse  sciant  quorum  ofRcium  est.  .  .  .  Itaque  pro  cujusque  personse  condi- 
tione  ac  dispositione,  etiam  getate,  cunctatio  baptismi  utilior  est  ;  prsecipue 
tamen  circa  parvulos.  Quid  enim  necesse  est  (si  non  tarn  necesse)  spon- 
sores  etiam  periculo  ingeri  ?  quia  et  ipsi  per  mortalitatem,  destituere 
promissiones  suas  possunt  et  proventu  malse  indolis  falli.  Ait  quidera. 
Dominus,  Nolite  illos  prohibere  ad  me  venire.  Veniant  ergo  dum  ado- 
lescunt,  veniant  dum  discunt,  dum  quo  veniant  docentur;  fiant  Christiani 
quum  Christum  nosse  potuerint.  Quid  festinat  innocens  setas  ad  remissio- 
nem  peccatormn  ?  Cautius  agetur  in  ssecularibus ;  ut  cui  substantia  terrena 
non  creditur,  divina  credatur.  Norint  petere  salutem  ut  petenti  dedisse 
videaris,"  &c.  The  words  in  the  parentheses  are  generally  omitted.  Wall 
renders  them,  "except  in  case  of  necessity,"  making  TertuUian  willing  to 
l^aptize  infants  when  in  danger  of  death.  Eev.  S.  Thelwall,  in  the  Ante- 
Nicene  Christian  Library,  gives  them  a  directly  opposite  signification: 
"*'  For  why  is  it  necessary  —  if  [baptism  itself]  is  not  so  [indispensably]  neces- 
«lary  (which  he  has  already  allowed  that  it  is  not)  — that  the  sponsors,"  &c. 


322  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

"obvious  that  the  usage  and  custom  of  infant-baptism  had  not 
as  yet,  at  that  time,  become  frequent  in  all  the  churches,"  and 
that,  while  "  certainly  in  the  Carthaginian  Church  pedobaptism 
had  been  received  into  use,  it  was  yet  held  to  be  an  institution 
not  derived  from  Christ  or  his  apostles"  (p.  191).  "This 
hypothesis"  (of  the  recent  introduction  of  pedobaptism)  "ac- 
counts," saj's  Dr.  Hovey,  "  for  the  silence  of  Tertullian  on 
certain  points.  He  recognizes  b}^  no  form  of  expression  either 
the  antiquity  or  the  general  prevalence  of  pedobaptism.  He 
replies  to  no  argument  from  ecclesiastical  tradition  in  its  favor. 
Yet  the  method  and  thoroughness  of  his  treatise  '  De  Baptismo  ' 
warrant  us  in  believing  that  he  would  have  replied  to  such  an 
argument,  had  it  been  in  use  ;  and  the  records  of  that  age  warrant 
us  in  sa3dng  that  such  an  argument  would  have  been  used,  if  it 
could  have  been,  in  defence  of  pedobaptism.  Nay,  more :  the 
writings  of  Tertullian  himself  authorize  us  to  assume  that  he 
would  never  have  arrayed  himself  against  this  practice,  had  it  been 


We  subjoin  Dr.  Hovey' s  translation:  "They  whose  office  it  is  linow  that 
baptism  is  not  to  be  rashly  granted.  .  .  .  Hence,  according  to  the  state  and 
disposition,  and  also  age,  of  each'  person,  the  delaying  of  baptism  is  more 
useful,  but  especially  in  the  case  of  little  children.  For  why  is  it  necessary 
that  their  sponsors  should  be  brought  into  peril,  since  these  may  abandon 
their  promises  by  death,  and  may  be  deceived  by  the  growth  of  an  evil 
nature?  The  Lord  says,  to^Tje  sure,  'Forbid  them  not  to  come  unto  me.' 
Let  them  come,  then,  when  they  grow  up ;  let  them  come  when  they  learn, 
when  they  are  taught  whither  they  come ;  let  them  become  Christians  when 
they  are  able  to  know  Christ.  Why  does  an  innocent  age  hasten  to  remis- 
sion of  sins  ?  In  secular  affairs  men  act  with  more  caution ;  so  that  one  to 
whom  no  earthly  substance  is  committed  is  intrusted  with  the  divine! 
Let  them  know  how  to  ask  for  salvation,  that  thou  mayest  seem  to  have 
'  given  to  him  that  asketh.' "  Tertullian  closes  the  chapter  (eighteenth  of 
De  Baptismo)  as  follows:  "Those  who  understand  the  weight  of  baptism 
will  rather  dread  the  receiving  it  than  the  delaying  of  it.  Fides  Integra 
secura  est  de  salute,  — '  A  sound  faith  is  sure  of  salvation.'  "  We  need  not 
stop  to  reconcile  this  last  utterance  with  other  assertions  of  Tertullian  in 
which  he  recognizes  the  necessity  of  baptism  to  salvation ;  as,  for  example, 
where  he  adduces  Christ's  declaration  to  ISiTicodemus  as  a  standing  rule, 
which  obstrinxit  fidem  ad  baptismi  necessitatem,  and  by  which  prcescribitur 
nemini  sine  baptismo  competere  salutem.  In  Tertullian's  view,  martyrdom 
for  Christ  would  save  without  baptism;  and  this  is  sufficient  to  justify  Mr. 
Thel wall's  assertion,  that,  with  Tertullian,  baptism  was  not  always  an  indis- 
pensable necessity. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  323 

general,  and  founded  on  ecclesiastical  tradition.  For  he  was  not 
yet  a  Montanist ;  and,  even  after  he  became  one,  he  spoke  with 
the  greatest  reverence  of  whatever  had  been  handed  down,  in  the 
common  faith  and  practice  of  the  Church,  from  the  apostles.  ... 
This  hypothesis  (also)  accounts  for  the  total  silence  of  earlier 
writers  on  the  subject  of  baptism.  For  more  than  one  hundred 
and  fifty  years  after  the  day  of  Pentecost,  there  is  not  a  syllable 
extant,  in  the  writings  of  apostles  or  Christian  fathers,  which 
refers  in  any  way  to  the  baptism  of  infants  ;  not  a  s^'Uable  which 
recognizes  the  children  of  believers  as  entitled  to  the  initiatory 
ordinance  of  church-life  because  of  their  parents'  faith.  Is  not 
this  a  most  remarkable  and  inexplicable  fact,  if  infant-baptism 
dates  from  the  apostolic  age,  and  rests  upon  apostolic  authority?  " 
"From  Tertullian's  language  respecting  the  magical  power  of 
baptism,"  says  Neander,  "it  might  be  expected  that  he  would 
favor  infant-baptism ;  and  therefore  his  opposition  to  it  tells  so 
much  the  more  against  its  apostolic  origin.  .  .  .  Many  persons 
have  maintained  that  Tertullian  does  not  speak  against  infant- 
baptism  absolutely,  but  only  means  that  it  should  not  be  practised 
generally ;  so  that  it  is  not  forbidden  in  cases  of  necessit}'.  This 
is  not,  however,  what  Tertullian  says.  The  expressions  we  have 
quoted  force  us  to  the  conclusion  that  he  was  an  unconditional 
opponent  of  infant-baptism."  Tertullian,  moreover,  was  a  be- 
liever in  the  hereditar}-  taint  and  guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  and  was,  in- 
deed, the  inventor  of  the  phrase,  originis  vitium  ("  original  sin  ") , 
and  would  say,  with  Clement  of  Rome  (first  Letter  to  the  Corin- 
thians, chap,  vii.),  and  with  Origen,  that  "no  one  is  free  from 
pollution,  though  his  life  be  but  of  one  day."  Yet  he  did  not,  like 
Augustine,  seek  to  have  it  purged  away  in  the  laver  of  baptism, 
but  even  asks,  "  Quid  festinat  innocens  £etas  ad  remissionem  pec- 
catorum  ?  "  —  "  Why  hastens  their  innocent  age  to  the  remission 
of  sins?"  "Here  let  it  be  distinctly  noted,"  says  Dr.  Chase, 
"  that  Tertullian  was  speaking,  not  of  infants,  properly  so  called, 
but  of  little  ones  (parvuU)  who  had  sufficient  maturit}'  to  be 
taught  (?)  lessons  of  Christian  truth  and  dut3^  This  was  per- 
ceived by  Bunsen,  so  distinguished  as  an  investigator  of  ci\T-l  and 
ecclesiastical  antiquities ;  and,  in  the  work  entitled  '  Hippolytus 
and  his  Age,'  he  sa^^s,  '  Tertullian's  opposition  is  to  the  baptism 
of  young  growing  children :  he  does  not  say  a  word  about  new- 


324  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

born  infants  ;  neither  does  Origen,  when  his  expressions  are  ac- 
curatelj"  weighed.'  "  Those  who  take  the  other  side  of  this 
question  would  say  that  Tertullian's  parvuU,  if  not  new-born 
infants,  were  j^et  not  old  enough  to  be  taught,  to  learn,  to  know 
Christ,  or  to  ask  for  salvation  ;  that,  if  pedobaptism  had  been 
unknown  to  or  opposed  to  the  tradition  of  the  Church,  he  would 
not  have  failed  to  mention  it ;  that,  moreover,  Tertullian's  mind 
was  crotchety  ;  that  his  opposition  to  pedobaptism  was  in  variance 
with  the  feelings,  and  practice  of  the  age,  was,  in  fact,  a  whim 
peculiar  to  himself,  and  was  akin  to  his  counselled  delay  of  the 
baptism  of  unmarried  persons,  "  who  are  likely  to  come  into 
temptation,"  and  of  widows,  "until  they  either  marry,  or  are  con- 
firmed in  continence."  But  one  can  easily  see  that  these  matters 
last  mentioned  were  but  incidentally  referred  to  bj'  Tertulhan,  and 
that  his  opposition  to  pedobaptism  was  far  more  determined, 
and  rested  on  far  different  grounds.  As  Neander  says,  it  might 
have  been  expected  that  TertuUian  would  have  desired  to  bestow 
the  grace  of  baptism  upon  little  ones,  who  could  put  no  obex  in 
the  way.  The  reasons  for  his  opposition  to  pedobaptism  are  not 
fully  stated ;  but  one  of  them  manifestly  is,  that  he  thought  it  to 
be' a  violation  of  the  law  and  teachings  of  Christ.  The  following 
brief  summation  of  tliis  whole  matter  is  by  Professor  E..  H. 
Plumptre,  a  writer  whom  we  cannot  suppose  to  be  prejudiced  in 
favor  of  Baptist  views  :  "  The  statement  of  Suicer  ('  Thesaurus,' 
ii.  1136),  that  for  the  first  two  centuries  no  one  was  baptized 
who  could  not  make  a  conscious  profession  of  his  faith,  is, 
perhaps,  overstrained ;  but  it  is  true  that  the  evidence  on  the 
other  side  is  meagre.  Justin's  statement,  that  '  many  had  been 
made  disciples  of  Christ,  eJc  paiddn,'  is  somewhat  strained  when 
these  words  are  translated,  as  Bingham  does,  '  from  their  infancy.' 
The  witness  of  Irenaeus,  who  says  that  '  infantes '  (as  well  as 
^parvuli")  'renascuntur  in  Deum,'  and  identifies  regeneration 
with  baptism,  is,  however,  more  distinct.  That  of  Origen,  how- 
ever, that  the  Church's  practice  was  '  etiam  parvulis  baptismum 
dari,'  is  rendered  less  so  by  the  distinction  drawn  by  Irenseus 
between  the  ^parvuW  and  the  '■infantes.'  The  treatise  in  which 
TertuUian  urges  '  cunctatio  baptismi '  as  the  safer  and  better 
course  is  rather  in  the  tone  of  one  who  is  contending  against 
a  growing  practice  than  of  one  who  rejects  a  tradition  of  the 


STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM.  325 

Universal  Church"  (see  art.  "Children,"  in  Smith's  "Christian 
Antiquities  " ) . 

Origen,  like  TertuUian,  believed  in  human  depra^dty,  —  a  deprav- 
ity^, however,  which  was  not  derived  from  Adam,  but  from  our  fall 
in  a  pre-existent  state,  and  from  the  pollution  of  birth.  If  we  may 
trust  the  translations  or  transformations,  hy  Eufinus,  of  Origen' s 
writings,  it  will  appear  that  this  distinguished  church  teacher  was 
a  believer  in  parvuU,  or  pecZo-baptism,  and  that  he  regarded  the 
practice  as  derived  by  tradition  from  the  apostles.  In  Origen's 
"  Homil^^  on  Leviticus,"  chap,  xii.,  as  translated  by  Rufinus,  he 
thus  speaks  (we  quote  from  Dr.  Hovej^'s  above-named  article)  : 
"Hear  David  speaking:  ^I  was  conceived  in  iniquities,'  says  lie, 
'  and. in  sins  did  my  mother  bring  me  forth; '  showing  that  every  soul 
which  is  born  in  the  flesh  is  polluted  with  the  filth  of  iniquit}'  and 
sin.  .  And,  for  this  reason,  that  was  said  which  we  have  mentioned 
before, — that  none  is  clear  from  pollution,  not  even  if  his  life  may 
have  been  but  of  one  day  [this  last  is  from  Job.  xiv.  4,  Septua- 
gint  version].  To  these  it  can  also  be  added,  that  it  may  be  in- 
quired, why,  since  the  baptism  of  the  Chm-ch  is  given  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,  baptism  is  given,  according  to  the  practice  of  the 
Church,  even  to  httle  children  [pai^vidi']  ?  for  the  gi'ace  of  baptism 
would  seem  superfluous,  if  there  were  nothing  in  little  children 
requiring  remission  and  indulgence."  In  his  "  Commentar}^  on 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,"  according  to  Rufinus'  version,  he  thus 
remarks  :  "  FinaUj',  also,  it  is  commanded  in  the  law  that  a  sac- 
rifice be  offered  for  him  who  is  born,  —  a  pair  of  turtle-doves  or  two 
young  pigeons;  of  which  one  is  for  a  sin-offering,  the  other  for  a 
burnt-offering.  For  what  sin  is  this  one  pigeon  ofiered?  Can 
the  new-born  child  (nuper  editus  parvulus)  have  committed  sin 
already  ?  Yet  it  has  sin,  for  which  the  sacrifice  is  commanded  to 
be  off"ered,  and  from  which  one  is  denied  to  be  free,  even  if  his  life 
has  been  but  of  one  day.  Of  this  sin,  therefore,  even  David  must 
be  believed  to  have  spoken  that  which  we  mentioned  above,  —  '  la 
sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me;'  for  no  sin  of  his  mother  is  men- 
tioned in  history.  For  this,  also,  the  Church  has  received  a  tradi- 
tion from  the  apostles  to  give  baptism  to  little  children,"  —  "  Pro 
hoc  et  ecclesia  ab  apostolis  traditionem  suscepit  etiam  parvulis 
baptismum  dare."  In  respect  to  these  statements,  we  will  hero 
only  sa}',  that  Rufinus,  as  is  generally  acknowledged,  took  so  great 


326  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

liberties  in  translating,  that  we  are  "uncertain,"  as  Erasmus  said, 
"  whether  we  are  reading  Origen  or  Eufinus."  And  "  this  plea," 
says  Dr.  Wall,  "  must  needs  give  some  abatement  to  the  authorit}'- 
of  these  two  testimonies."  Rufinus,  however,  according  to  Dr. 
Wall,  states,  in  regard  to  Origen's  comments  on  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  that  he  had  (merely)  shortened  this  work  by  one-half. 
This,  however,  is  but  a  part  of  the  storj-.  He  not  only  "  short- 
ened," but  SUPPLIED.  (See  Dr.  Hovey's  article,  j).  191.)  Tho- 
masius,  in  his  "Theological  System  of  Origen,"  thus  remarks: 
"  Least  of  all  have  I  dared  to  use  the  Commentary  on  the 
Romans,  which,  according  to  the  peroration  of  Rufinus,  seems 
to  have  suffered  a  complete  transformation  hj  the  translator." 
"This  work,"  says  Redepenning  in  his  "Life  of  Origen,"  "is 
intermediate  between  a  translation  and  a  treatise,  —  a  reproduc- 
tion according  to  the  views  and  wants  of  a  later  century."  We 
make  one  more  quotation  from  Origen,  and  this  time  from  his 
"  Homily  on  Luke  "  (ii.  21-24) ,  as  translated  by  Jerome  :  "  Occa- 
sion being  given  in  tliis  place,  I  touch  again  upon  what  is  frequently 
inquired  about  among  the  brethren.  Little  children  are  baptized 
for  the  remission  of  sins.  Of  what  sins?  Or  when  have  they 
sinned  ?  "  —  "  Parvuli  baptizantur  in  remissionem  peccatorum. 
Quorum  peccatorum?  vel  quo  tempore  peccaverunt 9 "  "Or  how 
can  there  be  any  reason  for  the  laver  in  the  case  of  little  children, 
imless  according  to  that  sense  of  which  we  have  just  now  spoken  ? 
Wo7ie  is  free  from  pollution,  not  even  if  his  life  may  have  been 
of  but  one  day  on  the  earth.  And  because  the  pollutions  of 
nativity'  are  removed  by  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  therefore  little 
children  are  baptized ;  for,  unless  one  be  born  of  water  and  the 
Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  According  to  Dr. 
Wall,  "  Jerome  (in  the  '  Homily  on  Luke ')  changed  nothing,  but 
expressed  every  thing  as  it  was  in  the  original,  as  he  owns  him- 
self." But  De  la  Rue,  the  Benedictine  editor  of  Origen,  saj's  that 
Jerome,  in  translating  Greek,  was  accustomed,  as  the  learned 
know,  "  to  insert  occasional^  some  things  of  his  own."  And 
Dupin  remarks,  that  "  Jerome's  translations  are  no  more  exact" 
than  those  of  Rufinus.  Rufinus  himself  sa^'s,  in  his  "  Invectives  " 
against  Jerome,  that  in  his  translations  he  did  but  follow  Jerome's 
example.  ■  As  Jerome  and  Rufinus,  from  attached  friends,  became 
sworn  enemies  (a  "  magnum  et  triste  miraculum,"  saj^s  Augustine, 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  327 

who  tried  in  vain  to  reconcile  them) ,  then*  agreement  on  this  sub- 
ject is,  indeed,  strong  presumptive  evidence  in  favor  of  the  genu- 
ineness of  these  utterances  by  Origen.  StUl,  as  their  views  on 
pedobaptism  probably  coincided,  we  cannot,  with  Matthies,  who 
speaks  of  the  mira  consensio  of  Jerome's  and  Rufinus'  versions, 
regard  the  agreement  in  this  matter  as  "  wonderful."  Sa^'s  Mat- 
thies, "  Origen' s  writings  prove  that  in  the  beginning  of  the  third 
century,  about  220,  pedobaptism  prevailed  in  Alexandria  and  else- 
where ;  but  his  reference  to  pedobaptism  as  an  apostolic  institution 
cannot  be  of  great  weight,  since  the  Alexandrian  catechists  are 
constantly  in  the  habit  of  ascribing  whatever  the}^  deem  important 
to  a  '  gnostic  tradition,'  which,  indeed,  is  the  more  to  be  observed 
in  Origen,  because  he  connected  the  notion  of  pedobaptism  with 
the  mythical  opinion  which  he  held  concerning  the  [ante-mundane] 
lapse  of  souls  "  (p.  194,  seq.) .  And  Neander  ("  Church  Histor}' ," 
i.  p.  314),  speaking  of  Origen's  reference  to  apostolic  tradition, 
says,  "  This  expression,  by  the  way,  cannot  be  regarded  as  of 
much  weight  in  this  age,  when  the  inclination  was  so  strong  to 
trace  ever}"  institution  which  was  considered  of  special  impor- 
tance to  the  apostles,  and  when  so  many  walls  of  separation, 
hindering  the  freedom  of  prospect,  had  already  been  set  up  be- 
tween this  and  the  apostolic  age."  ^     It  is  an  unfortunate  thing  for 

1  In  a  note  on  the  same  page  Neander  adds,  "In  Origen's  time,  too,  diffi- 
culties were  still  frequently  urged  against  infant-baptism  similar  to  those 
thrown  out  by  Tertidlian.  Compare  his  Homily  siv.  in  Lucam  (according  to 
the  translation  of  Jerome)."  (See  quotations  above  given,  especially  where 
Origen,  on  Luke  ii.  21-24,  says,  "Quod  frequenter  inter  fratres  quaeritur," 
&c. ;  i.e.,  "  what  is  often  inquired  about  among  the  brethren,"  &c. )  In  view 
of  this  fact,  and  that  the  later  fathers,  Chrysostom,  Jerome,  Augustine,  and 
others,  either  wrote  against  the  doubters  and  opposers  of  infant-baptism, 
or  in  their  writings  implied,  as  we  have  seen,  the  existence  of  such  per- 
sons, we  can  estimate  the  worth  of  Pelagius'  assertion,  not  altogether  free 
from  ambiguity:  "Nunquam  se  vel  impium  aliquem  hasreticum  audisse  qui 
hoc  quod  proposuit  de  parvulis  diceret;"  which  is  commonly  thus  inter- 
preted, that  "he  never  had  heard  of  any,  not  even  an  impious  heretic,  who 
(denied  baptism  to  little  ones)."  Is  it  possible  that  he,  or  that  Augustine 
himself,  had  never  heard  of  Tertullian  ? 

We  may  here  remark,  that  what  Neander  says  respecting  an  appeal  to 
"  apostolic  tradition"  in  the  time  of  Origen  is  still  more  applicable  to  the 
time  of  Augustine.  This  father  often  refers  to  "ancient  and  apostolic 
tradition  "  as  authorizing  infant-baptism  (and  infant-communion) :  yet  he  is 


328  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

the  pedobaptistic  side  of  this  question,  that  so  little,  even  on  Dr. 
Wall's  showing,  of  Origen's  G-reek  writings,  which  are  of  acknowl- 
edged genuineness,  can  be  made  to  favor  infant-baptism,  but  that 
every  passage  which  treats  directly  of  the  subject  of  baptism 
rather  opposes  it.  In  these  writings,  for  example,  he  calls  baptism 
"  a  sacrament  for  believers,"  and  saj^s  the  child  must  come  to  the 
' '  discernment  of  right  and  wrong ' '  before  ' '  he  can  be  made  capa- 
ble of  receiving  the  grace  of  Christ."  One  passage  (against  Cel- 
sus,  iii,  chap.  59)  deserves  to  be  full}'  quoted.  Celsus  had  boasted 
of  the  respectability  of  those  who  were  initiated  into  the  Heathen 
mysteries,  in  contrast  with  the  low  persons  whom  the  Christians 
invited  to  join  them.  His  words  are,  "  And  now  let  us  hear  what 
persons  the  Christians  invite.  "Whoever,  they  say,  is  a  sinner, 
whoever  is  unintelligent,  whoever  is  a  mere  child  {nepios) ,  and,  in 
short,  whoever  is  a  miserable  wretch,  the  kingdom  of  God  will 
receive  him."  To  this  Origeu  thus  replies:  "  It  is  one  thing  to 
invite  those  who  are  diseased  in  soul  to  a  healing,  and  another  to 
invite  the  healthy  to  a  knowledge  and  discernment  of  things  more 
divine.  And  we,  knowing  both  these,  in  the  first  place  caU  men 
to  be  healed :  we  exhort  the  sinful  to  come  to  the  words  which 
teach  them  not  to  sin,  and  the  unintelligent  to  come  to  those  which 
produce  understanding,  and  the  little  children  (nejnous,  infants) 
to  rise  in  thought  unto  man,  and  the  miserable  wretches  to  come  to 

not  so  sure  about  tlie  genuineness  of  this  tradition  but  that  he  lias  to 
qualify  it  in  every  instance  of  appeal  with  a  rectissime  creditur,  procul 
dubio,  ut  existimo,  &c. ;  that  is,  " it  is  very  rightly  believed,"  "doubtless," 
"as  I  think,"  &c.  (See  examples  in  Wall's  History  of  Infant-Baptism, 
chap.  XV.,  sect.  4,  §  3,  and  sect.  6,  §  2,  and  chap,  xix.,  §  9,  of  part  i. ;  also 
chap,  ix.,  §  15,  of  part  ii.)  Of  course,  when  the  fathers  refer  the  custom  of 
infant-baptism  to  "ancient  and  apostolical  tradition,"  their  reference  is  not 
to  any  apostolic  precept  or  example  contained  in  the  Scriptures.  Plain 
Scripture  tradition  does  not  require  a  procul  dubio  or  ut  existimo;  but  these 
qualificatives  are  exceedingly  necessary  for  a  tradition  existing  outside  of  the 
Scriptures.  Trine-immersion,  for  example,  is  said  by  the  fathers  generally 
to  be  derived  from  the  Lord  and  from  the  apostles ;  yet  they  will  sometimes 
acknowledge,  as  Jerome  does,  that  it  is  one  of  "many  things  observed  in 
the  churches  by  tradition  [which]  have  usurped  to  themselves  the  authority 
of  written  law."  Trine-im m ersion,  we  may  add,  is  really  antagonistic  to 
the  law  of  the  commission.  "  To  justify  such  a  practice,"  says  Dr.  Conant, 
"the  form  should  have  been  either  'in  the  names  of,'  or  'in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  in  the  name  of  the  Son,  and  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Spirit,'  " 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  329 

a  fortunate  state,  or  (what  is  more  proper  to  saj)  to  a  state  of 
blessedness.  But  when  those  of  the  exhorted  who  make  progress 
show  that  the}'  have  been  cleansed  bj^  the  word,  and,  as  much  as 
possible,  have  lived  a  better  life,  then  we  invite  them  to  be  initi- 
ated among  us."  "To  be  initiated  among  Christians,"  remarks 
Dr.  Hovej'  on  this  passage,  "  was  to  be  admitted  to  baptism  and 
church-fellowship.  This  passage  demonstrates  that  little  children 
—  the  word  is  nejoioits  —  were  not,  in  his  day,  admitted  to  bap- 
tism until  they  had  been  cleansed  by  the  word,  and  had  lived  a 
better  life  ;  until  they  were  old  enough  to  be  exhorted,  and  to  have 
a  manl}'  understanding."  Does  not  this  one  clear  and  undisputed 
sentence  of  Origen  outweigh  the  three  doubtful  passages  quoted 
from  the  translations  of  Jerome  and  Eufinus?  How  well,  too, 
does  it  tally  with  the  utterances  and  unplications  of  Tertullian  in 
reference  to  this  matter  ! 

One  question  still  remains.  Supposing  the  genuineness  of  these 
passages,  what  can  we  know  respecting  the  age  of  these  baptized 
little  ones?  The  words  for  children,  little  ones,  infants,  &c.,  in 
all  languages,  are  used  with  a  wide  signification.  See,  for  exam- 
ple, in  the  Ne'w  Testament,  the  usage  of  nepios,  brejjJios,  teknion, 
and  paidion.  Thus  Origen,  according  to  Jerome's  translation, 
speaks  of  Christ  when  twelve  j-ears  old  not  only  as  parvuhts, 
a  little  one,  but  as  infanSj  and  even  infantulus,  an  infant  and 
little  infant!  The  word  "infant"  means  "  not  speaking,"  but  is 
not  onl}-  in  law  usage  applied  to  minors,  and,  in  the  scheme  of 
proselj'te  baptism,  to  males  under  thirteen  j'ears,  and  to  females 
under  twelve  years,  but  in  Scripture  and  in  common  literature  is 
frequently  applied  to  those  who  are  possessed  of  intelligence,  and 
who  speak  with  understanding.  (See  1  Cor.  xiii.  11.)  From  the 
wonderful  story  told  b}'  Pauliuus,  of  the  appearing  of  Ambrose's 
ghost  at  the  time  of  Easter  in  the  great  chm-ch  where  his  body  was 
then  l3'ing,  w;e  learn  that  "a  great  many  of  the  infants,  plurimi 
infantes.^  that  were  baptized  [on  Easter  da}-],  saw  him  as  the}' 
came  back  from  the  font,  some  of  them  saying,  '  There  he  sits  in 
the  bishop's  chair ! '  others  of  them  showed  him  to  their  parents, 
pointing  with  their  liands  that  he  was  going  there  up  the  steps. 
But  the  parents,  looking,  could  not  see  him,  because  they  had  not 
their  eyes  cleansed ! ' '  The  term  parvulus  we  know  is  sometimes 
used  to  signify  an  infant  newly  born ;  yet  it  is  frequently  con- 


330  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

trasted  with  the  term  "  infant."  Iren^us,  as  we  have  seen,  speaks 
of  Christ's  regenerating  and  sanctifying  infantes  and  parvulos; 
and  his  parvuU,  or  little  ones,  were  old  enough  for  Christ  to 
furnish  them  "an  example  of  piety  and  obedience."  From  Ori- 
gen's  Greek  Commentary  on  Matt,  xviii.  10,  it  would  appear  that 
'his  baptized  "  little  ones  "  were  old  enough  to  "  desire  the  sincere 
milk  of  the  word ;  "  and  from  his  reply  to  Celsus  we  learn  that  his 
nepioi,  or  infants,  were  old  enough  to  be  exhorted  and  instructed, 
and  to  make  some  approach  towards  a  manl}"  understanding. 
Bunsen  judges  that  the  parvuli  of  Irenseus  (and  so  of  TertuUian 
and  Origen)  were  "young,  growing  children,  from  about  six  to 
ten  3'ears  old."  But,  if  they  were  anywhere  near  the  age  last 
mentioned,  they  were,  methiuks,  old  enough  to  sin  for  themselves  ; 
and  hence,  on  Bunsen's  supposition,  I  can  see  no  force  in  Origen's 
query,  supposing  it  to  be  genuine,  as  Bimsen  does,  —  "Quorum 
peecatorum?  vel  quo  tempore  peccaveruut ? "  i.e.,  "What  sins?  or 
when  did  the}-  sin?"  Besides,  in  one  of  the  above-quoted  pas- 
sages, Origen  speaks  of  a  miper  editus  parvulus,  a  newty-born 
little  one.  It  certainly  would  appear  from  these  representations 
that  Origen' s  parvuli  in  general  were  not  old  enough  to  commit 
voluntary  sin  ;  while  still  he  maintains,  in  the  words  of  Job  xiv.  4 
of  the  Seventy,  that  "no  one  is  free  from  pollution,  though  his 
life  be  but  of  one  day."  This  view  of  human  depravit}^  might 
naturall}-,  but  would  not  necessarily,  lead  to  the  practice  of  infant- 
baptism.  Hence  we  cannot  alwaj's  safely  infer  this  practice  from 
the  simple  fact  that  such  a  ^iew  was  held.  TertuUian  held  to  our 
"  sin  of  origin,"  yet  speaks  of  the  "  innocent  age  "  of  little  ones, 
and  urged  the  dela}"  of  theh'  baptism.  The  great  bodj^  of  Cal- 
vinistic  Baptists  believe  in  inherited  depra-s^t}',  and  in  man's  lost 
condition  b}'  nature  ;  yet  they  do  not  baptize  theu"  little  ones  till 
they  are  converted  to  Christ.  We  shall  here  subjoin  Bunsen's 
remarks  on  Origen's  parvuU-'hwgW.sni.  in  fuU,  and  leave  our  readers 
to  decide  on  this  matter  for  themselves:  "  Pedobaptism,  in  the 
more  modern  sense,  meaning  thereby  baptism  of  new-born  infants, 
with  the  vicarious  promises  of  parents  or  other  sponsors,  was 
utterly  unknown  to  the  early  Church,  not  only  down  to  the  end 
of  the  second,  but  indeed  to  the  middle  of  the  third,  century.  We 
shall  show  in  a  subsequent  page  how,  towards  the  close  of  the 
second  centmy,  this  practice  originated  in  the  baptism  of  children 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  331 

of  a  more  advanced  age.  ...  As  in  other  cases,  the  origin  was 
innocent ;  and  I  thinlc  that  we  are  at  tliis  moment  better  able  than 
either  the  defenders  or  opponents  of  infant-baptism  have  hitherto 
been  to  explain  liow  it  originated.  A  passage  in  oiu"  Alexandrian 
church-book  gives  the  true  explanation  of  the  assertion  of  Origen, 
himself  an  Alexandrian,  that  the  baptism  of  children  was  an  apos- 
tolic tradition ;  and  it  removes  the  origin  of  infant-baptism  from 
TertuUian  and  Hippolj-tus  to  the  end  of  our  present  [ante-Nicene] 
period,  Cj'prian  being  the  first  father,  who,  impelled  b}^  a  fanatical 
enthusiasm,  and  assisted  by  a  bad  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, established  it  as  a  principle.  Origen,  in  three  passages 
[above  quoted],  of  which  the  sense  is  in  the  main  the  same,  saj^s 
that  the  Levitical  injunction  of  the  sacrificial  purification  of  the 
first-born  infant  seems  to  him  a  proof  that  impuritj^  and  sinfulness 
attach  to  man  from  his  birth,  and  that,  for  this  reason,  the  Church, 
according  to  apostolical  tradition,  performs  the  act  of  baptism  even 
upon  children  (parvulis).  He  employ's  the  same  expression  for 
children  which  Jesus  used  when  the  disciples  endeavored  to  -pve- 
vent  them  from  being  brought  unto  Him,  — '  Suffer  the  little 
children  \^paidia,  parvulQ  to  come  unto  me,'  a  word  which  Ire- 
nseus  uses  in  a  remarkable  passage  [quoted  above],  implying  a 
difference  between  babes  {infantes)  and  bo3's  (pueri)  ;  obviously 
intending,  therefore,  to  express  what  those  words  in  the  gospel 
clearly  mean,  — little,  growing  children,  from  about  six  to  ten  3'ears 
old.  Such,  then,  is  also  the  true  interpretation  of  this  and  of  the 
other  two  passages  in  Origen  where  the  same  word  occurs.  But 
a  comparison  with  what  appears,  from  our  [Alexandrian]  text- 
book, to  have  been  considered  apostolic  tradition  before  the  time 
of  Origen,  shows  that  no  other  interpretation  is  admissible.  The 
text-book  speaks  of  those  tvJio  go  down  ivith  the  other  catechumens 
into  the  baptismal  bath,  but  are  not  yet  in  a  state  to  make  the  proper 
responses :  in  that  case  the  parents  are  bound  to  do  it  for  them. 
This  is  undoubtedl}'  the  apostolical  practice  to  which  Origen  refers  ; 
for  it  was  to  the  Church  of  Alexandria  that  he  particular!}^  be- 
longed. In  this  ordinance  the  whole  arrangement  seems  to  be  an 
exceptional  one.  And  so  it  is  in  Origen  ;  for  he  says  the  '  little 
ones  also '  {etiam  parvuUs) .  When  the  Church  instituted  pedo- 
baptism  (in  the  sense  of  children  from  six  to  ten  years  of  age) , 
she  doubtless  had  before  her  eyes  our  Lord's  affectionate  words, 


332  STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM. 

referred  to  likewise  by  Origen  on  the  occasion ;  and  the  di"\dnes 
of  the  sixteenth  century  soon  found  themselves  obhged  to  revert  to 
them.  Tertullian  rejects  such  an  interpretation  of  that  expression 
[of  Christ's]  in  the  following  terms  [see  quotation  above].  .  .  . 
This  is  the  way  in  which  TertuUian  treats  the  subject  of  the  bap- 
tism of  the  growing  children.  What  would  he  have  said  to  the 
application  of  Christ's  words  to  the  case  of  infants? 

The  difference,  then,  between  the  ante-Nicene  and  the  later 
Church,  was  essentially  this, — the  later  Church,  with  the  exception 
of  converts,  onty  baptized  new-born  infants,  and  she  did  so  on 
principle :  the  ancient  Church,  as  a  general  rule,  baptized  adults, 
and  only  after  they  had  gone  through  the  com'se  of  instruction,  and, 
as  the  exception  onl}",  Chiistian  childi-en  who  had  not  arrived  at 
years  of  matm'itj^,  but  never  infants.  Tertullian' s  opposition  is 
to  the  baptism  of  3'oung,  growing  children :  he  does  not  say  one 
word  about  new-born  infants.  Neither  does  Origen,  when  his 
expressions  are  accurately  weighed.  C;y'prian,  and  some  other 
African  bishops,  his  contemporaries,  at  the  close  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, were  the  first  who  viewed  baptism  in  the  light  of  a  washing- 
awa}^  of  the  universal  sinfulness  of  human  nature,  and  connected 
this  idea  with  that  ordinance  of  the  Old  Testament,  circumcision." 
(See  Bunsen's  "  riippol3'tus  and  his  Age,"  vol.  ii.  p.  106,  seq.) 

"  Origen,"  sa3's  Robert  Robinson  of  Cambridge,  "  was  a  singu- 
lar genius,  and  he  got  over  all  difficulties  by  distinguishing  baptism 
into  thi'ee  sorts.  'Baptism  'was  Jluminis,  Jlaminis,  sanguinis;  that 
is,  n''uer-baptism,  _^re-baptism,  ftZoocZ-baptism.  River-baptism  is  a 
being  dipped  in  water;  the  baptism  of  fire  is  repentance,  or  a 
disposition  to  receive  grace ;  blood-baptism  is  martyrdom  for 
Christ.  In  case  the  first  cannot  be  come  at,  the  two  last  supply 
its  place ;  and  a  person  may  be  saved  without  the  application  of 
water.  It  is  wonderful  that  both  Catholics  and  Protestants  have 
received  this  comment  for  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  baptism,  and 
differed  only  in  their  manner  of  explaining  it,  as  Cardinal  Bellar- 
mine  very  fairly  observes.  They  were  all  led  into  the  mistake 
by  applj'ing  to  natural  infants  what  Origen  had  said  of  only  3'ouths 
and  adults.  Origen' s  infants  were  capable  of  repentance  and 
martyrdom ;  but  the  infants  of  the  reformers  were  incapable  of 
both.  In  Origen  the  distinction  was  proper ;  in  them  the  con- 
trary "  ("  History  of  Baptism,"  p.  305). 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  333 

"  Origen,"  says  Dr.  Irah  Chase,  "  should  never  be  quoted  in 
support  of  infant-baptism."  Many  of  our  readers  will  probably 
feel  that  there  are  still  two  sides  to  this  question.^ 

1  Those  who  wish  to  go  deeper  into  this  "  thorny"  controversy  wih,  of 
course,  consult  Dr.  Wall,  as  also  Bingham,  Hofling,  Stier,  and  other  Pedo- 
baptist  writers,  on  the  one  side :  and,  for  the  other  side,  we  may  mention  such 
writings  as  Dr.  Barnas  Sears'  second  article  in  review  of  Burgess  on  Bap- 
tism, in  Christian  Eeview  for  1838;  Professor  Henry  J.  Eipley's  Exami- 
nation of  Dr.  Wood's  Argument  for  Infant-Baptism  from  Ecclesiastical 
History,  in  Christian  Review  for  October,  1851 ;  an  article  entitled  Origin 
of  Infant-Baptism,  in  the  Eeview  for  January^  1861 ;  the  different  articles 
of  Professor  Irah  Chase,  in  the  Christian  Eeview, — namely.  Testimony  of 
Origen  respecting  the  Baptism  of  Children  (April,  1854),  Basil  an  Impor- 
tant Witness  respecting  Baptism  in  the  Fourth  Century  (October,  1858); 
Prayers  for  Infants  in  the  Apostolical  Constitutions,  July,  1860;  Eeview 
of  Dr.  Bushnell's  xirguments  for  Infant-Baptism,  October,  1863,  pp.  501- 
611  (subsequently  published  with  articles  on  Origen's  Testimony,  &c.,  and 
on  Baptism  for  the  Dead,  by  the  American  Baptist  Publication  Society,  in 
a  volume  entitled  Infant-Baptism  an  Invention  of  Men) ;  Difficulties  of 
Infant-Baptism,  by  Professor  A.  N.  Arnold,  in  Baptist  Quarterly  for  Janu- 
ary, 1869;  Dr.  Hovey's  above-cited  article  in  the  Quarterly  for  April,  1869; 
also  another  article  by  the  same  author,  in  Quarterly  for  April,  1815,  en- 
titled Present  State  of  the  Baptismal  Controversy.  The  reader  will  find  an 
ample  list  of  references  on  this  and  other  points  relating  to  baptism  in  the 
Theological  Index  of  Howard  Malcom,  D.D.  From  this  work,  published 
in  1868,  we  learn  that  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  (a  Pedobaptist  gentleman,  we 
believe)  of  Philadelphia  has  a  list  of  titles  of  works  on  baptism  amounting 
to  nearly /owr  thousand,  and  that  the  same  gentleman  has  about  twenty- 
seven  hundred  in  his  possession. 


334  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  XXXI. 

BAPTISMAL  KEGENEEATION   AND   REMISSION. 

ZWINGLE  and  Cah-in  were,  we  believe,  the  first  theologians  in 
the  Church  who  maintained  that  the  phrase,  "  born  of  water," 
in  John  iii.  5,  had  neither  reference  nor  allusion  to  Christian  bap- 
tism. If,  however,  to  be  "born  of  water"  were  the  same  as  to 
be  "  baptized  in  water,"  it  does  by  no  means  follow  that  the  birth 
of  the  Spirit  is  tied  down  to  a  water-rite  of  man's  chance  perform- 
ance, and  is  invariably  connected  with  baptism  ;  nor  that  there  can 
be  no  birth  of  the  Spirit  without  water-baptism ;  nor  that  uncon- 
scious, helpless  infants  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  God,  unless 
they  have  been  baptized.  Certainly  such  infants  could  not,  of 
themselves,  possibly  comply  with  the  requisitions  mentioned  by  the 
Saviour,  —  could  neither  seek  for  the  Spirit's  regenerating,  saving 
power,  nor  procure  their  own  baptism.  And  when  Christ  spoke 
to  Nicodemus,  a  teacher  of  Israel,  and  through  him  to  all  who 
hear  His  gospel,  and  who,  through  divine  help,  have  the  power 
to  ohej,  He  had,  we  suppose,  no  more  reference  to  "  senseless 
and  blameless  babes,"  when  He  said,  "  If  any  one  be  not  born  of 
water  and  of  the  Spirit,"  &c.,  than  Paul  had  when  he  said,  "  If 
any  one  will  not  work,  neither  shall  he  eat."  So  the  declaration, 
"  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,"  has  reference 
to  those  only  who  are  capable  of  hearing,  belie-^nng,  and  of  pro- 
curing their  baptism.  The  fathers,  however,  without  exception, 
made  Christ's  words  to  Nicodemus  include  infants :  yea,  even  the 
Pelagians  held  this  same  "vdew ;  only  these  would  baptize  infants, 
not  properly  for  the  remission  of  sins,  not  to  save  them  from  end- 
less torments,  but  simpty  to  introduce  them  to  the  higher  joys  of 
the  "  kingdom."  But  the  creed  of  most  of  the  early  Church  theo- 
logians was,  "  one  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins  ;  "  and  hence 


STUDIES   ON  BAPTISM.  335 

they  felt,  that  to  leave  infants  unbaptized,  or  to  deny  that  their 
baptism  was  for  remission,  was  to  leave  them  under  that  ' '  condem- 
nation which  came  upon  all  men,"  and  thus  to  "kill  them  eter- 
nally." Had  it  not  been  for  this  declaration,  '  Unless  one  be  born 
of  water,'  &c.,  the  Pelagians,  probably,  would  have  been  anti-Pedo- 
baptists  in  practice.  As  it  was,  Augustine  and  Jerome  made  it 
hard  work  for  them  —  denjing,  as  they  did,  that  infants  had  any 
sin,  original  or  actual — to  give  an}^  reasonable  ground  for  the  prac- 
tice of  infant-baptism.  The  fathers,  in  general,  knew  no  infant- 
baptism  which  did  not  procure  regeneration  and  remission ;  and, 
if  living  in  our  day,  they  would  probabty  anathematize  as  heretics 
most  of  our  evangehcal  Pedobaptists,  who,  as  we  understand  it, 
make  the  baptizing  of  infants  to  consist  simpl}'  in  their  public  con- 
secration to  Christ,  or,  at  least,  refuse  to  see  in  it  an  invariable 
regeneration  and  a  sure  passport  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  But 
we,  with  many  of  our  Pedobaptist  friends,  are  doubtful  whether 
Christ's  words,  "  born  of  water  "  (not  "  tJie  water  of  baptism  ") , 
refer  to  the  baptismal  rite  ;  though  we  are  well  aware  that  to  enter- 
tain such  a  doubt  subjects  one's  self  to  the  anathema  which  the 
council  of  Trent  pronounces  on  any  one  who  ' '  wrests  to  some 
sort  of  metaphor  those  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  When 
our  Saviour,  in  His  earlier  ministr}^  preached  the  "  gospel  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,"  He  made  no  mention  of  baptism,  but  simply 
bade  men  to  "  repent,"  or  to  "  repent,  and  believe  the  gospel  " 
(Matt.  iv.  17,  23  ;  Mark  i.  14,  15).  So,  too,  when  He  spoke  to 
Nicodemus,  baptism  had  neither  been  appointed  by  Him,  nor 
(probably)  pe^-formed  by  Him  or  His  disciples.  Had  He  meant 
the  "sacrament  of  hoi}'  baptism,"  when  He  spoke  of  the  birth 
of  water.  He  would  probably  have  said  so.  If  only  the  baptized 
can  enter  heaven,  and  all  unbaptized  persons,  without  any  excep- 
tion, are  to  be  forever  debarred  from  that  kingdom,  this  fact, 
methiulvs,  would  have  been  repeatedly  and  most  plainly  stated,  and 
not  have  been  left  to  be  determined  from  uncertain  inferences.  To 
interpret,  as  some  have  done,  our  Saviour's  words,  born  of  water, 
as  meaning  baptized,  mainlj'  because  the  fathers  commonl}'  used 
the  words  "  regenerated  "  and  "  baptized  "  as  equivalent  terms,  and 
because  one  or  two  rabbis,  centuries  after  Christ,  affirmed  that  a 
Gentile  becoming  a  prosetyte  (not  simply,  however,  b}'  his  self- 
immersion,  but  by  circumcision  and  an  offering)  is  "like  a  child 


336  STUDIES  OK  BAPTISM. 

new  born,"  would  be  the  utmost  height  of  preposterousness.  !N'or 
will  it  do  to  say,  with  Ambrose,  that  Christ  in  this  passage  "  ex- 
cepts no  person,  not  an  infant,  not  one  that  is  hindered  by  any 
necessity,"  and  then  go  on  to  make  exceptions,  as  Wall  does, 
and  say  that  this  is  "God's  ordinary  way."  If  "no  person" 
is  excepted  by  the  Saviour,  then  every  unbaptized  infant  that 
has  lived  and  died  on  earth  since  our  Lord  spoke  with  Mcode- 
mus  is  forever  shut  out  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  That 
which  astonished  Nicodemus  was,  not  that  he  must  be  baptized 
(as  John's  disciples  had  been),  but  that  he  and  all  others 
(Jews  as  well  as  Gentiles,  to  whom  the  "  gospel  of  the  king- 
dom of  God  "  should  be  preached)  must  be  "  born  from  above," 
or  of  the  Spirit,  in  order  to  "  see  the  kingdom  of  God."  This, 
Mcodemus,  as  a  teacher  of  Israel,  might  have,  and  ought  to 
have,  known  from  the  teachings  of  the  Old  Testament  (Deut. 
XXX.  6;  Ps.  li.  6,  10;  Jer.  iv.  4;  Ezek.  xi.  19,  xviii.  31, 
xxxvi.  26,  &c.)  ;  but  he  could  not  possibly  have  been  expected 
to  know  that  a  water-baptism  invariabh^  procured  the  heavenly 
birth  of  the  Spirit,  and  that  "the  corporeal  ablution,"  in  the 
words  of  the  Eoman  Catechism,  ' '  accomphshes  in  the  soul 
that  which  it  signifies," — to  wit,  "the  washing- away  of  all 
the  stain  and  defilement  of  sin  through  the  power  of  the  Holj^ 
Ghost."  The  mind  of  this  Pharisee  was  abeady  sufficiently 
occupied  with  outward  rites  and  formalities ;  and  our  Saviour 
could  not  have  desired  to  emphasize  in  his  presence  the  im- 
portance of  any  external  rite,  least  of  all  to  set  it  forth  as  the 
one  indispensable  requisite  of  salvation.  No  "  Tractarian " 
was  needed  to  teU  him,  that  "in  order  to  be  the  true  subject 
of  Christ's  kingdom,  and  enjoy  its  eternal  blessings,  j^ou  must 
receive  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  in  which,  of  course,  your 
soul  will  be  new-created  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  your  unholiness 
purged,  and  3'our  sins  forgiven."  Yet  this  is  what,  "for  sub- 
stance of  doctrine,"  the  sacramentalist  believes;  and  to  ask 
him  how  these  things  can  be,  is,  according  to  Dr.  Puse}',  but  a 
"  Nicodemus  question."  It  is  also  to  be  noticed,  as  making 
against  this  sacramental  view,  that  our  Lord  first  speaks  to  Nico- 
demus of  the  birth  "from  above;"  afterwards,  and  but  once 
onl}',  of  the  birth  of  water  (and  of  the  Spirit)  ;  and  then  goes 
on  to  discourse  only  of  the  birth  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  birth  from 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  337 

above. ■^  No  one  can  suppose,  that,  when  the  evangelist  speaks  of 
being  "born  of  blood"  (i.  13),  he  means  "baptized  in  blood." 
And  again  :  to  be  born  merel}'  of  the  earthly  element  of  "  water  " 
is  no  more  to  be  born  "from  above"  than  to  be  born  of  the 
earthly  element  of  "  blood  "  or  of  the  "  flesh."  We  observe  that  a 
writer,  "  G.  M.  S.,"  in  "  Baptist  Quarterly,"  vol.  v.  p.  484,  makes 
"Spirit"  also  an  earthl^^  element,  meaning  the  wind  or  air,  a 
symbol  of  "  life  to  be  imparted,"  as  water  is  a  symbol  of  "  guilt 
to  be  cleansed  ;  "  by  which  interpretation,  "  'born  again'  consists 
in  '  tJiese  things,'  cleansing,  and  imparting  life  to  the  soul,  both 
THE  PREEOGATiVE  OP  GoD,"  and  both  preceding  the  ordinance  of 
baptism.  But,  if  a  man  is  born  of  two  earthly  elements,  he  can- 
not, with  any  propriety,  be  said  to  be  born  "  from  above."  And 
does  our  Saviour  really  mean  that  that  which  is  born  of  the  wind 
is  wind?  Our  Saviour  also,  it  is  to  be  observed,  speaks  not  of 
the  mystery  of  the  water-birth,  but  of  the  Spirit's  operation  in 
regeneration, — that  we  cannot  know  the  when,  nor  whence,  nor 
whither ;  cannot  bind  it  down  to  time,  or  place,  or  water. 

Not  unfrequently  in  the  Scriptures,  in  connection  with  the 
term  "  Spirit,"  an  explanatory  word  is  used  to  indicate  the  char- 
acter or  operation  of  the  Spirit.  Thus  we  read  of  Christ's 
baptizing  "in  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire;"  where  "fire,"  without 
doubt,  refers  to  the  refining,  "purifying,  dross-consuming  influ- 
ence of  the  Spirit"  (see  "Notes  on  the  Gospel  of  Matthew" 
by  Rev.  N.  M.  WiUiams).  In  John  vii.  38,  after  the  Saviour's 
words,  "  He  that  beheves  in  me,  as  said  the  scripture,  out 
of  his  bell}^  shall  flow  rivers  of  living  water,"  the  evangehst 
adds,  "  And  this  He  spoke  concerning  the  Spirit,"  &c.  (see  also 
John  iv.  14).  In  Paul's  declaration  to  the  Corinthian  disciples 
(1  Cor.  \i.  11),  "But  3'e  were  washed,  but  ye  were  sanctified, 
but  ye  were  justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  in  the 
Spirit  of  our  God,"  this  bathing  (cqjelousasthe)  refers,  as  Usteri, 
Eiickert,    and   others   rightlj'   suppose,   to   a   moral   or   spiritual 

1  "The  mention  of  'luater'  in  Jolm  iii.  5  is  only  of  secondary  impor- 
tance, in  order,  by  referring  to  a  S5anbol  familiar  to  Nicodemns,  to  render 
palpable  to  bis  mind  that  all-purifying  power  of  the  Divine  Spirit  -which 
was  needful  for  every  man.  Hence,  in  the  subsequent  part  of  His  discourse,. 
Christ  mentions  only  being  'born  of  the  Spirit.'"  —  Neahdee's  PZa?iiin3' 
and  Training  of  the  Church,  p.  321. 


338  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

cleansing.  On  the  passage  in  1  Cor.  xii.  13,  where  Paul  speaks 
of  baptism  in  one  Spirit,  and  of  drinking  into  one  Spirit,  Alford 
thus  remarks:  "Made  to  drink  of  one  Spirit,  or  watered  by 
one  Spirit;  viz.,  the  water  of  baptism  here  taken  as  identical 
with  the  Spirit,  whose  influence  accompanied  it."  See  also  Ezek. 
sssvi.  25-27  :  "  Then  will  I  sprinlde  clean  water  upon  you ;  .  .  . 
a  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you.  .  .  .  And  I  will  put  my  Spirit 
within  you."  And  in  Isa.  xHv.  3,  4,  we  hear  Jehovah  sajing, 
"  I  will  pour  water  upon  him  that  is  thirsty,  and  floods  upon  the 
dry  ground.  I  will  pour  out  My  Spirit  upon  thy  seed,"  &c. 
Hence  we  may  say  of  the  "  Spirit  and  water,"  in  our  passage, 
that  they  "  agree  in  one,"  or  represent  one  and  the  same  thing. 
The  evangelist,  who  alone  makes  record  of  our  Lord's  discourse 
to  Mcodemus,  often,  in  his  Gospel  and  Epistles,  describes  those 
who  are  "born  of  God,"  or  "begotten  of  God,"  or  "sons  of 
God,"  not  at  all  as  being  unconscious  infants,  not  at  aU  as  those 
who  have  merely  been  baptized  in  water,  but  as  those  who  believe 
that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,,  or  who  believe  on  His  name, — those 
who  love  God,  and  do  righteousness,  and  commit  no  sin,  but 
overcome  the  world,  and  keep  themselves  pure  (see  John  i.  12  ; 
1  John  ii.  29,  iii.  9,  10,  iv.  7,  v.  1,  4,  18).  And  neither  does 
he  nor  any  other  inspired  writer  say  that  this  heavenly  birth, 
this  divine  sonship,  was  effected  in  the  font  by  water-baptism, 
but  effected,  rather,  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  by  means  of  the  gospel, 
through  the  word  of  God  and  the  word  of  truth.  When  Paul 
says  (Tit.  iii.  5)  that  God  according  to  His  mercy  saved  us 
through  the  bath  or  bathing  of  regeneration,  and  [through]  re- 
newing of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  as  it  is  the 
Holy  Spirit  who  effects  the  renewing,  so  it  is  the  regeneration 
which  effects  the  bathing  or  cleansing  (see  Matthies  on  this 
passage).  In  other  words,  the  "washing  of  regeneration"  is 
not  the  regeneration  of  washing,  or  the  regeneration  produced  by 
washing.  John  the  Baptist  told  his  fellow-countrymen  that  he 
baptized  in  water,  eis  (for)  repentance,  and  that  his  "baptism  of 
repentance,"  or  "bath  of  repentance,"  was  eis  (for)  the  remis- 
sion of  sins ;  the  same  preposition,  eis,  being  used  here  as  in 
cour  Lord's  declaration  that  His  blood  was  "shed  for  many  for 
(in  order  to)  remission  of  sins;"  as  also  in  Peter's  counsel: 
■"  Eepent,  and  be  each  of  you  baptized  upon  the  name  of  Jesus 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  339 

Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins; "  and,  "Repent,  therefore,  and 
.turn,  for  the  blotting  out  of  joar  sins"  (Matt.  xxvi.  28;  Acts 
ii.   38,   iii.   19).^     Here  the  baptism  or  bath   of  repentance  is 

1  Professor  J.  E.  Farnam  of  Georgetown  College,  in  his  article  on 
Baptism  and  Eemission  (see  Baptist  Quarterly,  vol.  xi.,  18*77,  p.  481),  takes 
all  these  prepositions  in  a  telic  sense,  meaning  in  order  to,  and  makes 
even  John's  baptism  to  effect,  not  indeed  a  real,  but  a  ritual  or  ceremonial 
cleansing  and  remission.  "  John  the  Baptist,"  he  says,  "  was  emphatic  in 
demanding  repentance  as  a  prerequisite  of  baptism;  but  his  words  above 
cited,  if  literally  interpreted,  represent  baptism  as  preceding  and  in  order 
to  repentance.  The  obvious  explanation  of  this  seeming  contradiction  is, 
that  his  language  was  ritual;  and  the  same  is  true  of  Peter's  address  to 
the  Jews  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  But  the  shedding  of  Christ's  blood 
was  literally  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  not  a  ritual  representation 
thereof."  Again:  on  p.  486  he  says,  "I  aifirm,  that,  if  interpreted  liter- 
ally, the  two  passages  (Acts  ii.  38  and  xxii.  16)  teach  that  baptism  is 
essential  to  remission,  but  that  they  should  be  interpreted  idiomatically  in 
the  light  of  that  peculiar  Hebrew-Greek  idiom  whereby  a  rite  is  spoken  of 
as  effecting  that  of  which  it  is  simply  declarative,  or  symbolic,  or  typical ; 
that  this  idiomatic  phraseology  pervades  the  ritual  language  of  the  Old 
and  the  New  Testaments,  as  is  shown  by  references  to  the  Levitical  laws 
relating  to  cleansing  and  purifying ;  that  there  is  an  antecedent  probability 
that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  (accustomed  to  speak  of  the  Leviti- 
cal rites  as  possessing  a  certain  efficacy  because  they  were  the  signs  of 
things  which  did  possess  the  efficacy  ascribed  to  them)  would,  when  they 
should  come  to  speak  of  the  Christian  rites,  employ  the  same  idiom,  occa- 
sionally at  least,  especially  when  addressing  Jews;  and  that  they  would 
hence  speak  of  baptism  as  washing  away  or  remitting  sin,  when  it  was 
only  a  symbol  of  purification  from  sin  in  one  of  its  varied  aspects."  This 
interpretation,  so  far  as  it  has  reference  to  Acts  ii.  38,  has  force  and  validity 
only  as  the  phrase  "for  remission  of  sins"  is  connected  with  the  enjoined 
baptismal  rite ;  since  there  can  be  no  ritual  or  symbolical  remission  as  the 
direct  result  of  repentance.  This,  through  divine  grace  and  the  shed  blood 
of  Christ,  secures  actual  remission.  In  Dr.  Hackett's  explanation  of  Acts 
xxii.  16,  "wash  away  thy  sins,"  his  reference  to  eis  aphesin  hamartion 
of  ii.  38  seems  to  us  faulty,  since  the  reference  supposes  the  "remission" 
to  be  connected  solely  with  "  be  baptized;"  while,  in  explaining  this  latter 
passage,  he  connects  '' remission  of  sins"  (rightly)  "Avith  both  the  preced- 
ing verbs."  If  our  Lord  virtually  said,  "  Believe  and  be  baptized  in  order 
to  salvation,"  we  can  let  Peter  say,  "  Kepent  and  be  baptized  in  order  to 
remission." 

We  may  remark  that  the  "seeming  contradiction"  is  not  avoided  or 
explained  by  giving,  as  Dale  and  "T.  J.  M."  (Baptist  Quarterly,  vol.  v. 
p.  487)  would  do,  a  local  force  to  eis,  as  if  connected  with  baptismal 
elements;  for  this  baptiziwj  into  (an  element)  does  suppose,  as  Dale  ac- 


340  '       STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

represented  as  the  causa  efficiens,  so  the  sacramentalist  would 
say,  of  repentance  and  remission:  in  other  words,  John's  water- 
baptism  effected  repentance,  and  procured  the  remission  of  sins! 
a  dogma  as  wide  from  the  truth  as  the  east  is  from  the  west. 
And  yet  John's  language  by  itself,  and  in  its  natural  construction, 
favors  such  a  doctrine  much  more  than  Paul's  washing  or  bath 
of  regeneration  favors  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration  and 
salvation.  Most  commentators,  as  De  W"ette,  Huther,  Ebrard, 
Alford,  Wordsworth,  Ellicott,  and  J.  B.  Lightfoot,  make  the 
renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  well  as  the  regeneration,  to  be 
grammatically  dependent  on  the  "bath,"  or  "laver,"  as  they 
choose  to  have  it ;  and  some,  as  Wiesinger,  go  so  far  as  to  assert 
that  the  bath  of  baptism  "brings  about,"  or  "results  in,"  this 
regeneration  and  renewing, — a  doctrine  diametricaUj^  opposed 
to  Scripture  and  to  fact.  If  men  are  invariably  regenerated  and 
renewed  by  the  Spirit  in  the  laver  of  baptism,  so  important  a 
matter  should  by  this  time  be  well  known.  Cyprian,  we  know, 
seemed  to  think  that  his  baptism  did  much  for  his  spmtual  regen- 
eration. His  words  are,  "For  me,  while  I  yet  lay  in  darkness 
and  bewildering  night,  and  was  tossed  to  and  fro  on  the  billows 
of  this  troublesome  world,  ignorant  of  my  true  life,  an  outcast 
from  light  and  tnith,  I  used  to  think  that  second  birth  which 
divine  mercy  promised  for  m}'  salvation  a  hard  saying,  according 
to  the  hfe  I  then  led ;  as  if  a  man  could  be  so  quickened  to  a 
new  hfe  in  the  laver  of  healing  water  as  to  put  off  his  natural 
self,  and  keep  his  former  tabernacle,  yet  be  changed  in  heart 
and  soul !  '  How  is  it  possible,'  said  I,  '  for  so  great  a  conversion 
to  be  accomplished  ? '  .  .  .  But  after  that  life-giving  water  succored 
me,  washing  away  the  stain  of  fonner  3'ears,  and  pouring  into  my 
cleansed  and  hallowed  breast  the  light  which  comes  from  heaven ; 
after  that  I  drank  in  the  heavenly  Spiiit,  and  was  created  into  a 

knowledges  (thougli  "  T.  J.  M."  denies  it),  a  passing-out  of  one  condition 
into  a  new  one.  "T.  J.  M."  asserts  that  "  Jolin's  converts  did  not  receive 
repentance  by  being  baptized  into  it.  When  John  dipped  penitents  info 
the  Jordan,  it  was  not  for  the  purpose  of  swallowing  a  portion  of  the 
stream."  We  reply,  that,  if  John  dipped  penitents  into  the  Jordan,  they 
were  out  of  the  Jordan  before  their  dipping;  and,  if  John  baptized  men 
into  repentance  as  an  element,  they  were  naturally  in  a  state  of  impeni- 
tence before  their  baptism  (see  Dr.  Dale,  passim]. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  341 

new  man  by  a  second  birth ;  then,  man'ellously,  what  was  before 
doubtful  became  plain  to  me ;  what  was  hidden  was  revealed ; 
what  was  dark  began  to  shine ;  what  was  before  difficult  now 
had  a  way  and  means ;  what  had  seemed  impossible  could  be 
now  achieved ;  what  was  in  me  of  the  guilty  flesh  now  confessed 
that  it  was  earthy  ;  what  was  quickened  in  me  by  the  Hol}^  Ghost 
now  had  a  growth  according  to  God."  But  Cj^orian's  case  was 
peculiar,  and  forms  almost  an  exception.  Certainly  the  experi- 
ence of  ages  past,  the  world  over,  shows  that  baptism,  we  care 
not  in  what  communion  administered,  fails  very  often,  even  in 
the  case  of  adult  converts,  permanently  to  improve  the  character 
or  conduct  of  men ;  and  we  cannot  suppose  that  such  fruitless 
baptism  changes  or  improves  their  relation  toward  God.  Most 
Pedobaptists  have  held  that  baptism  has  an  invariable  effect  on 
those  who  die  in  infancy ;  but  they  must  have  acknowledged  to 
themselves  an  inability  to  discover  any  appreciable  effect  for 
good  which  it  has  on  vast  numbers  who  grow  up  to  manhood, 
and  who,  to  all  human  appearance,  live  and  die  in  sin.  If 
baptism  in  the  ' '  laver ' '  wUl  indeed  invariably  effect  regeneration 
and  renewal  and  remission,  then  can  we  all  be  saved  doubtless 
through  the  mercy  of  God,  and  yet  by  "  works  of  righteousness  " 
which  we  can  do,  or  which  others  can  do  for  us.  Of  course,  this 
sets  aside  Paul's  faA^orite  doctrine  of  justification  bj'  faith  alone, 
as  also  our  Sa^dour's  own  words,  taken  in  a  general  sense,  "He 
that  shall  endure  unto  the  end ' '  [which  thousands  of  baptized 
persons  fail  to  do]  "shall  be  saved."  If  we  felt  obliged  to 
interpret  this  loutron  (of  regeneration)  as  meaning  the  laver  of 
baptism,  our  explanation  would  be,  that  the  apostle  speaks  of 
baptism  as  a  S3'mbolical  and  sacred  observance,  in  which  (to  use 
EUicott's  words  in  part)  "  all  that  was  inward  properl}'  and 
completelj'^ .  [preceded  and]  accompanied  all  that  was  outward  ; ' ' 
and  in  this  view  it  might  well  be  called  a  loutron^  belong- 
ing to  and  representing  or  declaring  regeneration.  As  Justin 
Martj-r's  "  laver  of  repentance  "  "  belongs  to  those  who  repent," 
so  it  might  be  said  that  Paul's  "  laver  of  regeneration"  belongs 
to  those  who  are  regenerated.  Had  it,  however,  been  plainly 
affirmed  that  the  baptismal  laver  regenerates,  the  general  tenor  of 
Scripture  teaching  would  allow  us  even  then  onlj-  to  infer  that 
"  baptism  is  represented  as  having  this  importance  or  efficacy, 


342  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

because  it  is  tlie  sign  of  regeneration  "  (see  Hackett  on  Acts  xxii. 
16).  "We  maj^,  I  tMnk,  concede  that  this  "bath  of  regenera- 
tion" has,  probably,  some  reference  to  Christian  baptism  "  as  a 
S3"mbol  of  the  purification  of  the  inner  man."  But,  whatever  the 
reference  may  be,  the  language  of  Paul  here  does  not  prove  that 
one's  baptism  in  the  font  or  "  laver  "  invariably  effects,  or  is 
accompanied  by,  regeneration  and  renewal  by  the  Spirit. 

In  Eph.  V.  26  Paul  seems  to  speak  more  plainly,  perhaps,  of  the 
baptismal  loutron,  affirming  that  Christ  "  gave  Himself  up  for  the 
church,  that  He  might  sanctifj^  it,  having  cleansed  it  by  the  bath- 
ing of  the  water  in  the  word."  Some  commentators  make  this 
"  word  "  refer  to  the  baptismal  formula ;  some  to  the  consecration 
of  the  laver-water ;  others  make  it  mean  the  gospel,  the  word  of 
faith  or  of  promise,  and  connect  it  with  "sanctify"  or  with 
"  cleansing ; "  while  some  make  it  descriptive  of  the  water-bath. 
The  true  explanation  of  this  passage  is  not  entirely  clear ;  but,  in 
any  case,  this  cleansing  of  the  church  by  the  loutron  of  the  water 
in  the  word  refers  to  something  far  more  efficacious  than  a  mere 
water-baptism.  Says  Alford,  "  Thus  the  word  preached  and  re- 
ceived is  the  conditional  element  of  purification, — the  real  water 
of  spiritual  baptism, — that  wherein  and  whereby  alone  the  efficacy 
of  baptism  is  convej^ed,  —  that  wherein  and  whereby  we  are  re- 
generated." Ellicott's  opinion  is,  that  en  rJiemati  (in  the  word) 
"  specifies  the  necessary  accompaniment,  that  in  which  the  bap- 
tismal purification  is  vouchsafed  (comp.  John  xv.  3,  '  Now  are 
ye  clean  through  the  word,'  &c.),  and  without  which  it  is  not 
granted."  And,  according  to  Olshausen,  "m  the  word"  "un- 
questionably signifies  the  operation  of  the  pneuma."  Had  Clem- 
ent of  Alexandria  any  reference  to  this  passage  when  he  said, 
"  Our  sins  are  remitted  by  one  heahng  medicine,  logical  baptism  "  ? 

Peter's  affirmation  (1  Pet.  iii.  21),  that  "  baptism  now  saves  us 
[or  you]  also,"  has  in  part  already  been  considered.  J.  B.  Eoth- 
erham,  in  his  "  Emphasized  New  Testament,"  thus  renders  the 
whole  passage  :  ' '  Which  in  corresponding  fashion  now  saves  you 
also,  [even]  immersion  (not  a  putting-away  of  filth  of  flesh,  but  a 
request  of  a  good  conscience  toward  Grod),  through  [the]  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  Christ."  Professor  Grimm,  in  his  "  Lexicon 
of  New-Testament  Greek,"  now  being  translated  by  Professor  J. 
Henry  Thayer  of  Andover,  says  under  the  word  eperotema,  "As 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  343 

the  tenns  of  inquiry  and  demand  often  include  the  idea  of 
desire,  the  word  thus  gets  the  signification  of  earnest  seeking;  i.e., 
a  craving,  an  intense  desire.  ...  If  this  use  of  the  word  is  con- 
ceded, it  affords  us  the  easiest  and  most  congruous  explanation  of 
that  vexed  passage,  1  Pet.  iii.  21,  — '  which  (baptism)  now  saves 
us,  not  because  in  receiving  it  we  have  put  away  the  filth  of 
the  flesh,  but  because  we  have  earnestly  sought  a  conscience 
reconciled  to  God.'  .  .  .  It  is  doubtful,  indeed,  whether  eis  tJieon 
is  to  be  joined  with  eperbtema,  and  signifies  a  craving  directed 
unto  God,  or  with  suneideseos,  and  denotes  the  attitude  of  the 
conscience  towards  God  (i.e.,  in  relation  to  Him)  :  the  latter  con- 
struction is  favored  by  a  comparison  of  Acts  xxiv.  16,"  &c.  Pro- 
fessor Thayer,  to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  the  above  extract, 
after  noting  down  in  his  letter  several  other  differing  intei'preta- 
tions,  reaches  this  discouraging  conclusion:  "Now,  the  honest 
Enghsh  of  aU  this  is,  we  do  not  know  what  eperdtema  means 
here.''  As  scarcely  any  two  commentators  are  agreed  as  to  what 
is  sought  after  or  requested  in  baptism,  why  may  we  not  regard 
baptism  itself  as  the  very  thing  which  is  requested  of  a  good  con- 
science with  reference  to  God,  or  the  divine  will?  But,  however 
this  passage  may  be  interpreted,  something  more  than,  and  differ- 
ent from,  mere  water-baptism,  or  external  cleansing,  is  here  meant 
by  the  apostle.  He  saj^s,  indeed,  that  Noah  and  his  famil}^  "  were 
saved"  (not  by  baptism,  however;  for  it  is  not  stated  that  they 
were  baptized,  though  they  were  well  surrounded  with  waters  from 
above  and  from  the  great  deep)  "  b}'' water."  Yet,  even  in  this 
case,  it  was  not  so  much  the  water  as  the  faith  and  obedience  of 
the  patriarch  which  saved  them.  Their  lives,  of  course,  "were 
saved  by  water ;  "  yet,  if  their  souls  were  saved,  it  was  because  of 
their  personal  faith  and  righteousness.  The  apostle  then  adds  in 
substance,  that  water,  in  the  form  of  baptism,  also  saves  ;  3'et  he  is 
careful  to  add  that  its  saving  power  does  not  consist  in  the  out- 
ward washing.  Peter,  for  certain,  did  not  tell  Simon  Magus  that 
his  outward  baptism  saved  him,  but,  on  the  contrar}',  gave  him  to 
understand  that  he  was  still  in  his  sins,  still  um-enewed  and  uufor- 
given.  Nor  does  he  counsel  him  to  repent  and  be  again  bap- 
tized that  his  sins  might  be  trul}-  remitted,  but  simply  exhorts 
him  to  repent,  and  pra}"  to  God  for  forgiveness.  Thus  the  bap- 
tism which  "  saves  "  evidentl}"  refers  to  a  right  state  or  motion  of 


344  •       STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

the  conscience  as  it  respects  God ;  and  even  this  is  made  saving 
onty  "  through  the  resuiTection  of  Jesus  Christ."  Some,  we  are 
aware,  make  this  baptism  which  Peter  speaks  of  to  save  declara- 
tively,  or  in  sjTnbol ;  but  this,  it  seems  to  me,  is  what  the  outward 
baptism,  the  "  putting-away  the  filth  of  the  flesh,"  effects.  The 
outward  cleansing  saves  symbohcaUy ;  while  the  inward  cleansing, 
the  true  baptism,  saves  in  fact.  Baptism  —  as  sjTnbolic  of,  and  as 
a  required  public  confession  of,  renewal  by  the  Spirit,  faith  in 
Christ,  deadness  to  sin,  and  entrance  upon  a  new  life,  and  re- 
garded as  synonjTnous  of  aU  which  it  signifies  ;  baptism,  as  that 
which  is  earnestly  sought  for  by  a  good  conscience  with  special 
desire  to  obey  and  please  God,  or  whatever  else  the  eperotema 
of  a  good  conscience  toward  God  may  mean  —  may  be  and  is 
said  to  "  save."  And  this,  we  may  suppose,  is  virtually  but  an- 
other form  of  our  Lord's  affirmation,  "He  that  beHeveth  and  is 
baptized  shall  be  saved;"  baptism  here,  according  to  Lange, 
being  regarded  as  "  a  natural,  certainly  also  a  necessary  conse- 
quence of  faith,'-'  and  yet  "  is  not  named  along  with  faith  as  in 
itself  an  indispensable  matter/'  Our  Saviour's  mentioning  in 
the  next  clause  a  want  of  faith  alone  as  exposing  to  condemna- 
tion shows  that  faith  is  the  one  thing  indispensable  to  salvation.^ 


1  Eev.  J.  W.  Willmartli,  in  Baptist  Quarterly  for  July,  1877  (p.  319),  thus 
defines  tlie  relation  of  baptism  to  remission:  "Baptism  is  the  third  of  tliree 
gospel  requirements  or  conditions,  to  which  jointly  is  annexed  the  promise 
of  remission:  the  others  are  repentance  and  faith,  which  baptism  is  de- 
signed to  express,  embody,  and  consummate."  But  this  is  surely  going 
beyond  our  Lord's  declaration  in  Mark  (supposing  that  to  be  genuine); 
namely,  "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved."  For  this 
does  not  affirm,  or  necessarily  imply,  that  faith  and  baptism  are  equally 
and  alike  indispensably  necessary  to  salvation,  and  that  no  unbaptized  be- 
liever can  be  saved.  Had  he,  however,  said  that  "  baptism  is  the  second  of 
the  two  gospel  requirements  or  conditions  to  which  jointly  is  amiexed  the 
promise  of  salvation,"  this  would  imply  that  both  were  equally  and  abso- 
lutely necessaiy  to  salvation.  Mr.  Willmarth  says  that  God  can  "exceecZ 
His  promise,"  as  in  the  case  of  elect  penitent  and  believing  ones  "dying 
before  it  is  possible  to  be  immersed."  But  if  the  divine  "promise  of 
remission"  is  only  to  the  immersed  penitent  believer,  then  for  God  to  "ex- 
ceed this  promise,"  and  save  any  unbaptized  young  convert,  or  even  one 
Pedobaptist  Christian,  is,  methinks,  to  break  His  word.  After  the  above- 
given  definition  of  Mr.  Willmarth,  it  sounds  singularly  to  hear  him  say 
that  baptism  is  not  a  ^^  necessary  condition  of  salvation,"  and  that  "only 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  345 

Baptism  is  at  least  a  required  public  and  solemn  confession  of 
faith,  an  open  putting-on  of  Christ,  whereby  one  is  not,  indeed, 
made  a  Christian,  but  is  in  a  special  sense  declared  and  recog- 
nized to  be  such.  In  tliis  "VT-ew  there  is  some  truth  (with  error) 
in  F.  W.  Robertson's  representation :  "In  baptism  I  was  made  a 
child  of  God.     Yes,  coronation  makes  a  sovereign  ;  but,  paradoxi- 


repentance  is,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  necessary."  "  The  general-  drift 
of  Scripture,"  he  says,  "  seems  to  indicate  that  the  prodigal  is  actually 
forgiven  as  soon  as  he  returns :  instances  are  on  record  where  divine  assur- 
ance of  pardon  was  given  on  the  spot.  It  is  not  asserted  that  pardon  is 
always  delaj^ed  till  baptism,  or  that  it  is  actually  bestowed  in  the  act,  or 
that  it  is  invariably  refused  to  the  unbaptized.  T7ie  gospel  simply  guaran- 
tees pardon  to  the  penitent  believer  baptized.  Baptism  does  not  necessarily 
fix  the  exact  moment  of  forgiveness:  it  assures  of  forgiveness,"  &c.  But 
most  penitent  believers  who  have  given  themselves  to  Clu-ist  have  had,  we 
believe,  the  fullest  assurance  of  their  pardoned  and  saved  state  at  the  time  of 
their  conversion,  and  prior  to  baptism.  They  felt  themselves  to  be  "  justi- 
fied by  faith,"  and  they  had  that  peace  with  God  which  arises  from  a  sense 
of  forgiven  sins,  and  of  a  personal  interest  in  Christ.  Shall  we  say  with 
Dr.  Jeter,  the  author  of  Campbellism  Examined,  that  "there  is  a  connection' 
between  baptism  and  the  remission  of  sins "  ?  So  there  is  a  connection 
between  salvation  and  a  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord,  a  belief  of  the 
truth,  receiving  the  love  of  the  truth,  an  oral  professing  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
a  life  of  prayer,  a  life  of  self-denial,  an  enduring  unto  the  end,  &c.  But  is 
each  of  these  a  "gospel  requirement  or  condition,  to  which  is  annexed  the 
promise  of  salvation,"  or,  like  faith,  a  ground  or  instrumental  means  of 
justification  ?  and  must  the  penitent  believer  wait,  indeed,  till  each  of  these 
is  fully  accomplished,  and  the  end  is  reached,  and  the  last  breath  drawn, 
before  he  can  be  assured  of  his  forgiveness  and  salvation  ?  Timothy  was 
assured  that  by  giving  heed  to  himself  and  to  the  doctrine,  and  continuing 
in  them,  he  would  both  save  himself  and  them  who  heard  him.  But,  sup- 
posing there  was  no  opportunity  given  him  to  continue  in  these  things, 
would  he,  therefore,  be  debarred  f I'om  salvation  ?  Paul,  in  Eom.  x.  10,  affirms 
that  "  with  the  mouth  confession  is  made  eis  (unto,  in  order  to)  salvation." 
Circumstances,  however,  might  be  such  that  the  believing  soul  would  have 
no  opportunity  with  his  mouth  to  confess  Jesus  as  Lord ;  yet  is  not  such  a 
believer  "  justified  by  faith,"  and  made  sure  of  salvation?  If  so,  then  the 
penitent  sinner  may  be  justified  by  faith,  and  saved  in  Christ,  before  he  has 
opportunity  to  put  on  Christ  by  baptism.  From  all  which  it  is  evident  that 
baptism  is  not,  like  faith,  an  indispensable  requisite  to  salvation.  Doubtless 
this  justifying  faith  will,  where  opportunity  is  given,  be  followed  by  the 
performance  of  all  the  required  acts  of  obedience,  which,  indeed,  are  gen- 
erally necessary  to  salvation,  but  which  do  not  instrumentally  justify  the 
repentant  sinner. 


346  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

cal  as  it  maj  seem,  it  can  only  make  a  sovereign  of  one  who  is 
sovereign  alreadj-.  Crown  a  jDretender,  that  coronation  will  not 
create  the  Idng.  Coronation  is  the  authoritative  act  of  the  nation, 
declaring  a  fact  which  was  a  fact  before."  If,  now,  we  connect 
with  baptism  what  the  Scriptures  frequently  connect  with  it,  and 
what  the  ordinance  properl}'  impMes,  —  to  wit,  the  birth  of  the  Spmt, 
discipleship,  faith,  repentance,  prayer,  the  good  conscience,  &c.,  — 
we  may  regard  it  not  only  as  significant  of,  but  as  equivalent  to, 
remission  and  salvation.  For  this  reason,  an  Alford  can  say  of 
baptism,  that,  "in  all  its  completion,"  it  "  not  only  represents,  but 
is,  the  new  birth ;  "  and  a  Luther  can  aver  that  baptism  "  worketh 
forgiveness  of  sins,  delivers  from  death  and  the  devil,  and  gives 
everlasting  salvation  to  all  loJio  believe."  But  will  even  this  view 
of  baptism  "in  all  its  completeness  as  a  sacrament "  justify  Al- 
ford in  saying  that  "  it  is  in  that  font,  and  when  we  are  in  it,  that 
the  first  breath  of  that  hfe  [the  new  life  unto  God]  is  drawn ' '  ? 
He  certainly  did  not  hold  that  to  be  born  of  water,  or  to  be  bap- 
tized, is,  ex  necessitate,  to  be  born  of  the  Spuit ;  for,  though  he 
asserts  that  ' '  baptismal  regeneration  is  the  distinguishing  doctrine 
of  the  new  covenant,"  he  immediately  adds,  "  But  let  us  take 
care  and  bear  in  mind  what  baptism  means  ;  not  the  mere  ecclesi- 
astical act,  not  the  mere  fact  of  reception  by  that  act  among  God's 
professing  people,  but  that  completed  by  the  divine  act,  [and] 
manifested  by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  heart  and 
through  the  life."  The  fathers  gave  to  baptism  the  name  of  re- 
generation ;  yet  Justin,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Tertullian,  Origen, 
Cyprian,  and  others  of  them  who  assigned  to  baptism  a  regenera- 
tive and  sa\ing  power,  held  that  baptism  has  no  efficacy  (for 
adults)  without  repentance  and  a  holy  hfe.  The  water-bath,  in 
theu'  view,  must  have  the  presence  and  the  power  of  the  Spirit 
and  the  grace  of  Christ  in  order  to  cleanse  the  soul  and  wash 
awaj'  sin.  But  did  they  believe,  with  the  author  of  the  "  Sacra- 
ment of  Responsibility,"  that  an  "  ever-present  Saviour  gives  to 
each  httle  one  the  inward  grace  with  the  outward  sign"?  In 
reference  to  adults,  at  least,  who  could  put  an  obex  in  the  way, 
they  must  have  held  that  the  baptismal  blessing  was  contingent, 
and  that  the  birth  of  water  did  not  invariabty  secure  the  birth  of 
the  Spirit.  J.  B.  Mozley,  in  his  "  Primitive  Doctrine  of  Baptismal 
Regeneration"    (1855),  thus  takes  the  language  of  the  fathers, 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  347 

as  also  that  of  the  baptismal  service  in  the  Protestant-Episcopal 
Church,  "  not  in  a  real  and  literal,  but  in  a  hj'pothetical  or  charita- 
bly presumptive  meaning."  —  See  "  Creeds  of  Christendom  "  (vol. 
i.  p.  640)  bj'  Dr.  Schaff,  who  affinns  that  the  patristic  baptismal 
regeneration  "  must  be  understood  chieflj^  of  adult  baptism." 
William  Goode,  in  his  work  on  "  The  Effects  of  Baptism,"  &c., 
also  holds  that  the  early  Anghcan  divines,  who  were  strongly  Cal- 
vinistic  in  doctrine,  and  who  composed  the  formularies  of  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,^  were  not  sacramentalists  in  the  modern 
sense  of  that  term,  the  doctrines  of  absolute  predestination  and 
indefectible  grace  being  irreconcilable  with  the  doctrine  that  spirit- 
ual regeneration  is  inseparable  from  baptism ;  though  he  has  to 
confess  that  ' '  the  expressions  evidently  favor  the  notion  of  their 
referring  to  the  fuU  baptismal  blessing."  And  Archdeacon  R.  I. 
Wilberforce,  who  finally  became  a  pervert  to  Rome,  in  his  answer 
to  Goode,  acknowledges  that  "  a  belief  that  any  gifts  of  grace  are 
bestowed  where  there  is  no  certainty  of  salvation  is  inconsistent 
with  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  theory  of  Calvin."  Goode's 
own  view  appears  to  be,  that  the  baptismal  blessing  is  always 
contingent  and  expectative,  depending  upon  God's  purpose  and 
man's  improvement ;  and  this  view  he  attributes  to  the  old  English 
divines.  To  show  that  this  blessing  is  not  immediate,  but  expec- 
tative,  he  adduces,  as  Archbishop  Usher  and  Dr.  Wall  did  before 
liim,  the  illustration  of  a  wealthy  gentleman  making  over  an  estate 
to  an  infant,  to  be  possessed  by  him  when  he  comes  to  years  of 
discretion,  on  condition  of  a  very  small  pajinent  being  made  by 
him  at  that  period  ;  which  pajnnent  is  promised  in  the  name  of  the 
child  by  his  sureties,  &g.  Will  not  these  sureties,  he  asks,  thank 
him  when  he  agrees  to  sign  and  seal  the  deed  on  that  condition,  as 
for  "a  gift  akead}^  bestowed,"  though  the  child  may  forfeit  the 
estate  by  non-compliance?  (See  p.  416.)  We  would  ask  if  these 
^^  sureties,"  in  such  a  case,  should  not  be  called  on  to  fulfil  their 

1  "  There  are  reasons,  indeed,  for  believing  that  the  baptismal  office  was 
drawn  iip  by  Bucer  himself,  as  an  exact  copy  of  it  is  found  in  one  of  his 
letters  to  the  Arclibisliop  of  Cologne ;  and  neither  Dr.  Hampden  nor  Arch- 
bishop Whately  could  reject  the  modern  interpretation  with  greater  loath- 
ing than  that  sturdy  champion  of  Calvinism,  Martin  Bucer."  —  From  A 
Historical  Sketch  of  Tractarianism,  by  Professor  Hema^  Lixcolx,  in  the 
Christian  Eeview  for  April,  1857,  p.  241. 


348  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

promise.  But  this  view  has,  we  think,  too  much  of  contingency 
in  it  to  suit  tlie  views  and  feelings  of  the  fathers  on  this  point : 
certainly  it  would  not  satisfy  the  modern  Puseyites,  or  Sacramen- 
talists.  These,  as  a  general  thing,  hold  that  baptism  is  not  a  sign 
of  regeneration,  but  is  regeneration ;  not  a  seal  of  pardon,  but  a 
means  of  pardon ;  that  the  baptized  child  is  regenerated,  and 
made  not  only  a  member  of  the  visible  church,  but  a  child  of  grace  ; 
that  regeneration  can  only  be  accomplished  in  "  holy  baptism ;  " 
that,  prior  to  baptism,  there  is  neither  renewal,  faith,  nor  forgive- 
ness ;  and  generally,  that,  after  baptism,  there  is  no  remission  of 
sins.  Dr.  Pusey  affirms  that  there  are  only  two  periods  for  "  a  full 
cleansing  of  the,  soul,  — baptism  and  the  day  of  judgment."  He 
also  states,  that,  "  before  his  [Paul's]  baptism,  he  appears  neither 
to  have  been  pardoned,  regenerated,  justified,  nor  enlightened." 
And  this  is  said  of  him  whom  Ananias  called  "  brother  Saul  "  ! 
Ananias,  indeed,  counselled  his  young  Christian  brother  to  "Have 
thyself  baptized,  and  wash  away  th}"  sins,  calhug  on  His  name  " 
(Acts  sxii.  16).  But  Ananias  was  sent  to  his  brother  Saul,  not 
to  tell  him  how  his  sins  might  be  forgiven,  but  that  he  might  re- 
ceive his  sight,  and  be  filled  with  the  Spirit  (Acts  ix.  17).  And 
Ananias  knew,  or,  if  he  did  not,  the  converted  prajdng  Saul  of 
Tarsus  well  knew,  that  he  could  not  by  any  phj'Sical  washing 
remove  his  sins  ;  well  knew  that  all  the  waters  of  all  the  oceans 
could  not  wash  away  his  stains  of  guilt ;  that  the  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ  alone  cleanseth  from  all  sin.  Says  Rev.  H.  L.  Gear, . 
"  When  Ananias  said,  '  Be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thj  sins,'  he 
no  more  meant  that  sins  were  to  be  literally  and  actuall}^  washed 
away  b}^  baptism  than  Christ  meant  that  there  was  to  be  a  literal 
and  actual  eating  of  His  body  when  He  said,  '  Take,  eat,  this  is 
my  body ; '  neither  was  there  any  more  deception  nor  mistake  in 
the  one  case  than  in  the  other.  Both  the  cleansing  of  sins  in  bap- 
tism, and  the  partaking  of  Christ  in  the  supper,  are  emblematical 
or  symbolical  only  so  far  as  the  sjTnbols  are  concerned,  and  actual 
only  with  regard  to  what  they  denote.  If  this  interpretation  is 
not  allowable,  we  must  accept  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation, 
or  at  least  hold  to  the  real  presence  of  the  bod3^  and  blood  of 
Christ  in  the  elements  of  the  supper."  "  Baptism,"  says  Dr. 
Hove}^  in  his  (newspaper)  discussion  of  "  ejjerotema,"  "  repre- 
sents a  change  that  has  been  already  accomplished  :  it  pictures  in 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  349 

the  present  what  has  been  experienced  in  the  past."  The  con- 
verted Saul  of  Tarsus  might,  therefore,  be  counselled  thus  to  wash 
aw»y  his  sins  in  figure  as  they  had  been  washed  away  in  fact, 
caUing  on  the  name  of  Christ,  and  thanking  Him  for  His  pardon- 
ing love  and  sanctifj'ing  grace  already  received.  Are  we  asked  if 
Peter  does  not  counsel  the  anxious  thousands  at  Pentecost  to  be 
baptized  for,  in  order  to,  the  remission  of  sins?  We  answer  un- 
hesitatingly, No.  He  bids  them  repent  and  be  baptized  for  remis- 
sion. If,  however,  this  "remission"  has  reference  to  baptism 
alone,  we  should  not  then  feel  obliged  to  regard  the  eis  of  this 
passage  as  used  in  a  telic  sense,  though  we  would  not  deny  that 
it  might  have  such  use  in  ritualistic  language.  Professor  G-essner 
Harrison,  in  his  "  Treatise  on  the  Greek  Prepositions,"  &c.,  says 
that  "  ei's  with  the  accusative  is  used  also  to  denote  the  object 
with  regard  to  which  any  thing  is  done  ;  "  thus  signifying  "  in  re- 
gard to,"  "  with  reference  to."  Of  course,  the  context,  or  the 
general  scope  of  Scripture  teaching,  must  determine  whether  this 
"  reference  "be  to  the  future  with  a  telic  sense  as  in  Luke  v.  4, 
*'  Let  down  your  nets  eis  (with  reference  to,  in  order  to)  a  draught," 
and  2  Cor.  ii.  12,  "  When  I  came  to  Troas  eis  (with  reference  to) 
the  gospel,"  that  is,  in  order  to  preach  it ;  or  whether  the  reference 
be  to  something  in  the  past,  without  this  idea  of  aim  or  purpose, 
as  in  Acts  xxv.  20,  "  Being  perplexed  eis  (with  reference  to)  the 
dispute  concerning  these  things,"  and  in  Rom.  iv.  20,  "  He  wavered 
not  eis  (with  reference  to)  the  promise  of  God  thi'ough  unbelief." 
Rev.  James  W.  Willmarth,  in  "Baptist  Quarterly,"  avers  that  he 
has  failed  to  find  an  example  where  eis  "  means  '  with  reference 
to,'  in  the  sense  of  a  retrospective  and  commemorative  reference 
to  a  past  event ;  "  and  he  asks,  "  Where  is  the  example  of  the  use 
of  eis  to  denote  a  relation  between  an  act  as  a  sj'mbol,  and  some 
past  event  or  accomplished  fact  which  such  symbol  is  intended 
to  set  forth  as  emblem,  or  declaration,  or  commemoration?  "  We 
would  again  refer  to  John's  baptizing  in  water  eis  (unto)  repent- 
ance as  an  example  where  reference  is  had  to  the  past,  and  where 
eis  does  not  mean  "in  order  to."  .Mr.  Willmarth  says  that 
"John's  baptism  looked  to  the  futm'e,"  and  that  those  baptized 
b}'  him  stood  "  pledged  unto  repentance,  thenceforward  to  have  a 
changed  heart  and  life."  Still  he  acknowledges  that  "  those  bap- 
tized by  John  were  required  indeed  to  repent,"  as  well  as  "to 


350  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

stand  pledged  unto  repentance;"  in  other  words,  that  a  "pres- 
ent as  well  as  prospective  repentance"  was  required.  A  less 
ambiguous  statement  would  be,  that  "those  whom  John  wofald 
baptize  were  already  repentant;"  which  fact  proves  that  eis  in 
John's  declaration  has  a  retrospective  (as  well  as  prospective) 
reference,  and  hence  that  this  "unto"  cannot  mean  "in  order 
to."  If,  now,  the  preposition  eis  be  connected  with  bapHstheto  in 
Acts  ii.  38,  then  the  counsel  which  Peter  gives  the  penitent  ones 
is,  to  be  baptized  with  reference  to  remission  of  sins  already 
secured  by  repentance.  This  would  exactly  accord  with  John's 
baptizing  repentant  men  in  water  with  reference  to  repentance 
already  exercised,  and  with  the  pm'port  of  his  ' '  baptism  of  repent- 
ance," which  had  reference  to  a  forgiveness  ah-eady  experienced. 
Baptizo  eis,  as  we  have  indicated  in  a  previous  chapter,  expresses 
the  idea  of  appertaining  to  or  belonging  to  ;  and  this  idea  is  closely 
related  to  the  more  general  idea  of  baptizing  "  with  reference  to." 
Thus  to  be  baptized  with  reference  to  repentance  exercised  de- 
notes a  giving-up  of  one's  self  wholly  to  repentance,  or  an  entire 
belonging  to  repentance.  But  even  if  eis,  as  connected  with  both 
verbs,  repent  and  be  baptized,  means,  as  we  suppose  it  does,  "  in 
order  to  "  (remission),  this  would  not  prove  that  baptism,  equally 
with  repentance,  is  necessary  to  salvation ;  much  less  that  mere 
outward  baptism  (which,  according  to  this  same  Peter,  is  but 
"the  putting-away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh")  secures  remission 
and  salvation.  If  one  wishes  to  know  what  Peter  did  regard  as 
essential  to  the  washing-away  of  sins,  let  him  turn  to  Acts  iii.  19, 
X.  43,  and  hear  the  apostle's  words:  "Repent,  therefore,  and 
turn,  eis  (in  order  to)  the  blotting-out  of  jowc  sins  ;  "  and  "Every 
one  who  believes  in  Him  [Christ]  shall  through  His  name  receive 
remission  of  sins."  Nothing  absolutely  indispensable  to  remis- 
sion of  sins  could  have  been  omitted  in  these  representations. 
To  like  effect  also  are  Paul's  words  to  the  PhHippian  jailer :  "  Be- 
lieve on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved  ;  "  as  also 
the  Saviour's  words  when  He  commissioned  this  same  Paul  to 
preach  that  men  "  should  repent,  and  turn  from  darkness  to  hght, 
and  from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  God,  that  they  may  obtain  for- 
giveness of  sins."  (Acts  xxvi.  20,  18.  See  also  Acts  xiii.  38; 
Rom.  iii.  25-28  ;  Glal.  ii.  16  ;  Eph.  i.  7  ;  Col.  i.  14  ;  Heb.  ix.  12, 
14,  22  ;  1  Pet.  i.  19  ;  and  many  other  places  where  both  Paul  and 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  351 

Peter  speak  of  remission  of  sins  to  be  obtained  only  in  Christ,  and 
through  faith  in  Him  and  in  His  "  precious  blood.")  It  may 
indeed  be  said  that  the  death  and  blood  of  Christ  are  the  merito- 
rious cause  of  forgiveness,  that  repentance  is  a  necessary  ante- 
cedent to  forgiveness,  and  that  faith  is  the  appropriating  cause  of 
forgiveness,  while  baptism  is  the  appointed  means  of  forgiveness. 
.But,  if  baptism  is  the  essential  and  indispensable  means  of  remis- 
sion of  sins,  how  could  our  Saviour  in  His  earthly  ministry  forgive 
penitent  ones  without  baptism  ?  and  how  could  the  mention  of  this 
rite  be  so  frequentl}^  omitted  by  the  apostles  when  speaking  of  the 
way  of  forgiveness  and  salvation  ?  Why  have  they  not  once  plainly 
stated,  that,  without  baptism,  there  is  no  regeneration  and  no  re- 
mission? The  Judaizing  teachers  could  come  down  to  Antioch, 
affirming  in  language  unmistakable,  "Unless  ye  are  circumcised,  ye 
cannot  be  saved."  Why  did  not  Peter  and  Paul  in  reply  to  them, 
or  on  some  other  occasion,  declare,  in  language  as  unambiguous, 
"  Baptism  alone  will  now  secure  your  regeneration  and  pardon-; 
but,  unless  ye  be  baptized,  your  sins  cannot  be  forgiven,  and  ye 
cannot  be  saved ' '  ?  Baptism  is  but  one  of  many  acts  of  faith  and 
obedience  ;  and  we  cannot  suppose  that  the  apostles,  who  knew  how 
to  distinguish  repentance  and  faith  from  baptism,  always  meant 
baptism  whenever  they  spoke  of  justifying  and  saving  faith. 

If,  however,  it  be  supposed  that  the  sins  of  the  penitent,  believ- 
ing Saul  of  Tarsus,  for  example,  were  not  washed  awa}'-  or  forgiven 
till  he  entered  the  bath  of  baptism,  we  could  not  thence  infer  that 
the  outward  washing  was  any  thing  more  than  symbolic  of  the 
inner  cleansing  then  and  there  effected  in  answer  to  praj^er  ("  for 
whosoever  shaU  caU  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved  ") 
by  Christ's  atoning  blood,  through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit; 
much  less  could  we  infer  that  ever}'  baptismal  washing  invariably 
secures  renewal  by  the  Spirit,  and  the  washing  awa}^  of  sins.  To 
affirm  that  spiritual  regeneration  and  the  remission  of  sins  can 
only  be  had  "  in  that  font,  and  when  we  are  in  it,"  —  what  a  doc- 
trine is  this  for  a  Pauline  theology  !  , 

According  to  Dr.  Pusey,  baptism  ingrafts  us  into,  or  incorpo- 
rates us  into,  Christ.  By  baptism  "  God  takes  us  out  of  our  rela- 
tion to  Adam,  and  makes  us  actual  members  of  His  Son."  One 
writer  (Sewell)  saj's,  that,  in  the  Bible,  renovation,  enlightenment, 
forgiveness,  sanctification,  death  to  sin,  are  all  effected  by  bap- 


352  •  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

tism ;  and  the  struggle  of  after-life  is  "to  defend  what  we  have 
received."  Even  non-elect  baptized  infants,  who  wiU  ultimately 
perish,  receive,  in  the  view  of  some,  a  measure  of  grace,  and  are 
freed  in  baptism  from  the  guilt  of  original  sin.  A  Simon  Magus 
was  regenerated  in  and  by  his  baptism,  but  immediately  fell,  and 
thus  received  the  grace  of  God  in  vain.  Some  seem  to  disallow 
any  entire  falling  away  of  the  baptized.  Thus  the  Right  Rev. 
Bishop  McCoskry  of  Michigan  asserts  that  "in  this  ordinance 
every  child  is  made  a  new  creature  in  Christ  Jesus  ; ' '  that  ' '  the 
Spirit  of  God  is  given  to  every  child  in  baptism,  without  any  ex- 
ception, not  only  to  begin,  but  to  carry  on  and  complete,' the 
great  work  of  their  salvation.  The  relationship  thus  created  will 
remain ;  it  can  never  be  shaken  off  in  this  world :  however 
unworthy  the  members  of  this  family  may  become,  they  will  still 
remain  the  children  of  God."  Plad  the  apostle  Paul  entertained 
such  "\dews  of  the  regenerating  power  and  efficacious  grace  of 
baptism,  he  never  could  have  written  to  the  "  many  "  Corinthian 
behevers  whom  he  had  "  begotten  through  the  gospel,"  and  who 
were  saved  "by  the  foolishness  of  preaching,"  that  he  thanked 
God  he  had  baptized  so  few  of  them,  and  that  Christ  sent  him, 
"  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gospel."  On  this  passage 
(1  Cor.  i.  13-18)  Dr.  Hovey  thus  remarks  :  "  In  the  second  place, 
he  [Paul]  refers  to  the  fact  of  his  ha-sang  baptized  but  a  small 
number,  comparatively,  of  the  Christians  to  whom  he  was  writing. 
A  few  persons,  the  first-friuts  of  his  ministry  in  Corinth,  he  had 
himself  baptized,  but  not  the  major  part  of  the  disciples  there. 
And  for  this  he  was  thanlrful  to  God,  evidently  beheving  that  a 
wise  Providence  had  kept  him  from  administering  this  ordinance 
more  frequently,  lest  he  should  be  charged  with  having  baptized  in  . 
his  own  name.  And,  from  the  reason  which  he  assigns  for  thank- 
ing God,  it  is  natural  to  infer,  that,  in  submitting  to  the  ordinance 
of  baptism,  men  were  understood  to  avow  their  discipleship  to 
some  one.  It  was  a  rite  by  which  they  asserted  publicly  and  for- 
mally their  allegiance  to  him  into  whose  name  they  were  immersed. 
In  the  third  place,  he  refers  to  the  fact  of  his  having  been  called 
especially  to  the  preaching  of  the  gospel.  This  may  have  been 
the  case  with  the  other  apostles  likewise  ;  for,  in  some  instances  at 
least,  Peter  seems  to  have  committed  the  work  of  baptizing  to 
others  (see  Acts  x.  48) .     Yet  the  apostles  were  certainly  commis- 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  353 

sioned  to  baptize  as  well  as  preach  ;  and  therefore,  by  the  words, 
'  For  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,   but  to  preach  the  gospel,' 
Paul  can  only  mean  to  affirm,  that,  in  sending  him  forth  as  an 
apostle,  Christ  attached  pre-eminent  importanee  to  his  work  as  a 
preacher.     There  is  nothing,  perhaps,  in  this  expression,  to  show 
that  preaching  is  in  itself  a  higher  form  of  seryice  than  baptizing  ; 
but  there  is  in  it  good  e"VT.dence,  that,  for  the  apostles^  the  work  of 
preaching  was  more  important  than  an}^  other.     And  the  one  suffi- 
cient reason  for  this  was  their  inspu-ation.     It  may  also  be  re- 
marked, that  what  has  now  been  said  affords  a  certain  presumption 
in  favor  of  the  opinion,  that,  if  thousands  were  baptized  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  other  disciples  besides  the  eleven  took  part  in 
administering  the   ordinance.     In  the  fourth  place,  the  apostle 
refers  to  the  fact  of  there  being  a  divine  power  in  the  foohshness 
of  preaching.     By  means  of  it,  those  who  beUeve  are  saved.     And 
the  way  in  which  the  apostle  extols  his  work  as  a  preacher,  shows, 
we  thinli,  that  he  looked  upon  it  as  having,  in  contrast  with  baptiz- 
ing, a  causal  relation  to  the  new  Ufe,  and  that  he  gloried  in  it  as 
the  means  by  which  God  was  most  signally  revealing  His  sa^dng 
grace.     If  this  is  not  the  impression  which  his  language,  in  the. 
first  chapter  of  his  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  makes  on  an. 
open  and  docile  mind,  we  are  quite  mistaken ;  and,  if  this  is  his. 
meaning,  the  whole  sacramental  theory  of  salvation  is  an  error.. 
The  passage,  therefore,  is  one  of  transcendent  importance,  and', 
deserves  the  deep  consideration  of  all  who  love  the  truth.    And,  in: 
the  fifth  place,  he  refers  to  the  fact  of  his  being  the   spiritual, 
father  of  the  Christians  to  whom  he  was  writing,  and  as  having; 
begotten  them  in  Christ  through  the   gospel.      Two   things   are 
manifestly  asserted  by  his  language :   namel}',  first,  that   a  verj'- 
large  part  of  the  behevers  in  Corinth  had  been  regenerated  under 
the  preaching  of  Paul,  while  only  a  few  of  them  had  been  baptized. 
by  him  personall}" ;  and,  secondly,  that  the  gospel  as  preached  by 
him  had  some  direct  relation  to  the  beginning  of  the  new  life  in 
them.     They  were  begotten  through  the  gospel "  ("  Baptist  Quar- 
terly," vol.  iv.  pp.  239,  240) .1 


1  In  partial  opposition  to  the  above  view,  we  quote  from  Eev.  Mr.  Will- 
marth's  Baptism  and  Kemission  :  "  He  [Paul]  does  not  deny  that  he 
preached  baptism,  but  only  says  that  he  did  not  there  (generally)  adminis- 


354  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

Most  sacramentalists,  however,  do  not  deem  this  baptismal 
grace  to  be  indefectible,  but  hold  that  it  may  prove  inoperative, 
and  be  finally  lost  through  human  neglect  and  wickedness.  In 
view  of  the  objection  that  the  sacraments  do  not  produce  the  effect, 
whieh,  if  they  were  reaUy  eflflcacious,  could  not  fail  to  attend 
them,  some,  hke  Bishop  Hobart,  would  answer,  that  the  change 
effected  by  baptism  is  not  a  mQral  transformation  of  the  soul  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  but  is  rather  a  change  of  state  than  of  nature.-^ 

ter  the  rite  with  his  own  hands.  He  does  not  deny  that  the  '  Lord  sent  him 
to  preach '  baptism,  but  does  deny  that  his  great  mission  was  to  baptize.  It 
is  evident,  from  the  narratives  of  Acts  xvi.  and  xviii,,  that  he  did  preach 
baptism  at  Corinth  and  elsewhere  as  a  part  of  the  gospel,  and  that  those 
who  believed  under  his  preaching  were  immediately  baptized.  But  he  pre- 
ferred, when  practicable,  that  some  one  else  should  officiate ;  just  as  now  an 
'  evangelist '  (so  called)  might,  for  the  best  of  reasons,  prefer  that  the  pas- 
tors should  do  the  baptizing,  while  himself  strenuously  insisting  on  baptism 
in  his  preaching  "  (see  Baptist  Quarterly  for  1877,  p.  312). 

^  In  a  somewhat  similar  manner  Alexander  Campbell  distinguished  be- 
tween a  change  of  heart —  a  being  begotten  by  the  Spirit  to  a  new  life — and 
a  being  born  of  water  in  baptism;  which  last  effects,  not  an  inward  renewal, 
but  a  change  of  state.  He  would,  however,  always  put  spiritual  renewal 
before  baptism  or  the  new  birth.  His  words  are,  "  As  it  takes  four  letters 
to  spell  the  word  e-v-i-1,  .  .  .  just  so  it  requires  faith,  repentance,  baptism, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  to  spell  salvation"  (see,  in  Christian  Eeview  for 
October,  1856,  an  article  on  Campbellism,  by  John  M.  Peck,  D.D. ;  also 
Dr.  Jeter's  Campbellism  Examined).  The  mischief  of  Campbellism  is  this, 
that  it  regards  the  terms  pardoned,  justified,  sanctified,  reconciled,  adopted, 
and  saved,  as  representing  "  a  state  or  condition; "  which  state  or  condition 
is  secured  only  by  baptism.  "If  men,"  he  says,  "are  conscious  that  their 
sins  are  forgiven,  and  that  they  are  pardoned  before  they  are  immersed, 
I  advise  them  not  to  go  into  the  water;  for  they  have  no  need  of  it."  He 
teaches  that  Peter,  who,  with  the  "keys"  which  were  intrusted  to  him, 
opened  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  Christ's  visible  church,  both  to  Jews  and  to 
Gentiles,  "made  repentance  or  reformation  and  immersion  egwai??/ neces- 
sary to  forgiveness."  Thu.s,  while  he  asserts  that  one  "may  be  baptized  in 
all  the  waters  of  the  world,  and  yet  not  be  saved,"  he  also  maintains  that 
"remission  of  sins  .  .  .  cannot  be  enjoyed  by  any  person  before  immer- 
sion" (see  his  Remission  of  Sins,  the  Christian  Inmiersion).  Paul  told 
the  Ephesian  Christians,  "By  grace  are  ye  saved  through /aif/i,  and  that 
not  of  yourselves ;  it  is  the  gift  of  God :  not  of  works,  lest  any  man  should 
boast."  And  to  the  Philippian  jailer  he  said,  "Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved."  Our  Saviour  also  said,  "He  that  believeth 
in  me  hath  everlasting  life;"  and  to  the  penitent  thief  on  the  cross,  who, 
as  not  being  a  martyr  for  Christ,  was  not  saved  even  by  his  baptism  of 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  355 

.Others  who  hold  to  the  inseparability  of  baptism  and  spiritual 
regeneration,  like  Dr.  Pusey  and  R.  I.  Wilberforce,  reply  that  the 
heaven-born  life  of  the  baptized  may  die  out  within  them ;  that 

"blood,"  He  gave  the  assurance,  "This  day  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in 
paradise."  So,  too,  our  Lord's  commission  as  given  by  Luke  enjoins  the 
proclamation  simply  of  "repentance,  and  remission  of  sins."  And  with 
this  corresponds  His  own  preaching  of  the  "gospel  of  the  kingdom  of 
God,"  in  which  He  bids  men  simply  to  "repent,  and  believe  the  gospel." 
Li  all  these  announcements  touching  the  way  of  pardon,  life,  and  salvation, 
nothing  is  said  concerning  the  absolute  indispensableness  of  baptism. 
Even  in  the  commission  as  given  by  Mark,  which  seemingly  makes  faith 
and  baptism  alike  saving,  it  is  not  affirmed  that  baptism  is  always  and  abso- 
lutely essential  to  salvation;  for,  as  Professor  Farnam  remarks,  "whether 
baptism  be  or  be  not  a  prerequisite,  it  is  true  tbat  '  He  that  believeth  and 
is  baptized  shall  be  saved.'  And,  if  Christ  had  intended  to  instruct  His 
apostles  to  preach  to  all  nations  the  necessity  of  baptism  to  remission.  He 
would  not  have  failed  to  employ  words  that  would  clearly  express  that 
idea"  (see  his  Baptism  and  Eemission,  in  Baptist  Quarterly,  p.  481). 
And  Professor  Kendrick,  in  opposition  to  the  view  of  Wolff,  that  the  bap- 
tism in  this  form  of  the  commission  refers  to  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit, 
thus  writes:  "Nor  does  this  view  [that  Christ  has  reference  to  water-bap- 
tism] place  faith  and  baptism  upon  the  same  footing  as  conditions  of 
salvation.  Faith  is  the  one  indispensable  and  sufficient  condition :  baptism 
is  naturally  and  properly  connected  with  it  as  the  established  and  invariable 
mode  by  which  the  new-born  believer's  allegiance  to  Christ  was  expressed. 
The  substance  and  the  symbol  are  here  naturally  associated,  as  they  ever 
were  in  the  subsequent  procedure  of  the  apostles."  Mr.  Campbell  tells  us 
that  remission,  life,  and  salvation  are,  indeed,  secured  by  faith,  and  hy  bap- 
tism as  "an  act  of  faith."  Many,  however,  are  the  "acts  of  faith"  which 
God  I'equires  of  the  Christian;  yet  none  of  these  "acts"  are  specified  by 
Paul  when  he  says,  "By  grace  are  ye  saved  through /ai^/j,  .  .  .  not  of 
toor/cs."  Certain,  at  least,  it  is,  that  "remission  of  sins  [was]  enjoyed  be- 
fore immersion"  by  the  penitent  thief,  if  he  were  an  heir  to  paradise.  Mr. 
Campbell,  however,  has  conceded,  that  though  "baptism  is  for  the  remis- 
sion of  past  sins  in  the  case  of  penitent  believers,"  yet  "  a  person  who 
believes  the  gospel,  and  cannot  be  immersed,  may  obtain  remission."  Still 
more,  he  has  acknowledged  that  the  water  of  baptism  only  ^^ formally 
washes  away  our  sins,"  and  that  "Paul's  sins  were  really  pardoned  when 
he  believed ;  yet  he  had  no  solemn  pledge  of  the  fact,  no  formal  acquittal, 
no  formal  purgation  of  his  sins,  until  he  had  washed,  them  away  in  the 
water  of  baptism."  In  our  opinion,  most  Baptists  would  not  serioiisly 
demur  at  a  merely /or?7iaZ  washing  away  of  sins  in  baptism.  And,  in  regard 
to  the  above  distinction  made  between  "begotten"  and  "born,"  we 
would  simply  observe,  that  a  mere  glance  at  John  iii.  5  will  show  its  inappli- 
cability to  the  subject  in  question. 


356  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

though  they  are  ingrafted  and  incorporated  into  Christ,  and  united 
as  a  branch  to  the  true  -v^ine,  they  may  not  abide  in  Him,  but 
become  barren  branches,  and  so  be  taken  away  ;  that,  though  intro- 
duced into  Christ's  family,  the}^  may  prove  to  be  unworthy  mem- 
bers ;  that,  though  the  gift  is  always  bestowed  in  baptism,  it  is  not 
always  used  ;  and  that  this  seed  of  grace,  though  implanted  in  the 
heart  of  the  baptized,  unless  it  be  nurtured,  and  haye  time  and  favor- 
ing cu'cumstances  for  its  growth,  may  never  yield  any  fruit.  One 
thing  alone  has  been  held  to  be  certain  both  by  ancient  and  modern 
Puseyites  ;  namely,  that  to  all  the  baptized  tvJio  die  in  infancy  the 
gates  of  the  heavenly  kingdom  will  be  thrown  wide  open. 

In  our  view,  the  Scriptures  will,  indeed,  allow  us  to  think  and 
to  say  much  of  Christian  baptism,  even  of  its  saving  power,  if 
this  baptism  be  considered  with  all  its  requisites  and  "in  all  its 
completeness."  -But  nowhere  in  all  the  Scriptures  is  an  intima- 
tion given  that  the  mere  outward  act  of  baptism  does  of  itself 
invariably  seciu'e  the  birth  from  above,  and  save  the  soul,  and  wash 
away  sins,  and  procure  remission ;  and  to  assert  that  water- 
baptism  administered  indiscriminately  to  adults  and  to  infants 
invariably  effects  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the  Spirit,  and 
procui'es  remission  of  sins,  is  to  advance  a  doctrine  whose  true 
parentage  must  be  traced  back  to  the  "father  of  hes."  K, 
indeed,  the  required  birth  of  water  (John  iii.  5)  means  baptism, 
then  the  natural  inference  would  be,  that  baptism  precedes,  and 
perhaps  has  a  causal  connection  with,  regeneration  by  the  Spirit. 
And  this  is  one  reason  why  we  w:ould  deny  its  reference  to  the 
rite  of  baptism.  For  in  all  the  passages  of  Scripture,  and  they 
are  ybyj  many,  where  Christian  baptism,  or  its  administration,  is 
plainly  mentioned,  it  is  invariably  preceded  by  the  fruits  of  the 
Spiiit, — repentance,  faith,  discipleship,  &c. ;  and  thus,  of  course, 
it  follows  regeneration,  and  renewal  hj  the  Spirit.  (See  Mark  xvi. 
16;  Acts  ii.  38,  41,  viii.  12,  13,  36-38,  ix.  18,  x.  47,  xvi.  14, 
15,  31-33,  xviii.  8,  &c.)  Dr.  Wihiam  Nast  (Methodist),  in  his 
"  Dissertation  on  Christian  Baptism,"  saj's,  "  It  cannot  be  denied 
that  we  find,  in  the  recorded  practice  of  the  apostles,  faith  uni- 
formly preceding  baptism."  Professor  Reuss  of  Strasburg,  in 
his  "History  of  Christian  Theology  in  the  Apostolic  Age,"  thus 
remarks  :  "  It  is  not  difficult  to  show  that  Christian  baptism  em- 
braced far  more  than  mere  repentance.     It  was  to  be  conferred 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  357 

only  when  faith  had  been  already  manifested  as  the  result  of 
preaching.  So  soon  as  a  confession  of  faith  is  made,  baptism 
is  added  to  seal  and  confirm  it  in  a  positive,  and,  so  to  speak, 
oflScial  manner.  If  this  baptism  were  intended  to  be  an}"  thing 
more  than  a  symbol,  we  cannot  comprehend  how  it  could  be  placed 
after  aU  the  rest.  Clearly  it  is  not  baptism  which  produces  or 
insures  the  pardon  of  sins.  Eepentance  and  faith  must  first  be 
actually  pi-esent ;  forgiveness,  their  necessary  and  direct  conse- 
quence, is  then  bestowed  ;  and  baptism  is  the  outward  and  mate- 
rial representation  of  a  spiritual  fact  ah-ead}^  consummated  in  the 
soul."  "We  find  in  Simon  Magus,"  says  Dr.  Schafi"?  "an  ex- 
ample of  the  baptism  of  water  without  that  of  the  Spirit ;  and,  in 
Cornehus,  of  the  communication  of  the  Spirit  before  the  applica- 
tion of  water."  Bishop  Babington  ssljs  that  God  without  baptism 
is  able  to  save,  and  hath  not  tied  His  gi'ace  to  any  sign.  David 
judged  not  his  child  damned,  though  he  died  before  the  eighth 
day ;  neither  cried  he  out  for  it  as  he  did  for  Absalom  that  was  cir- 
cumcised. "Before  a  man  be  baptized  (as  the  eunuch)  he  may 
stand  in  the  state  of  salvation."  Bishop  Bedell  held  that  "  repro- 
bates, coming  to  years  of  discretion  after  baptism,  shall  be  con- 
demned for  orginal  sin  ;  for  theu*  absolution  and  washing  in  baptism 
was  but  conditional  and  expectative,  which  doth  trul}' interest  them 
in  all  the  promises  of  God,  but  under  the  condition  of  repenting, 
beheving,  and  obejdng,  which  thej^  never  perform,  and  therefore 
never  attain  the  promise.  Consider  well  what  j'ou  mU  say  of 
women  before  Christ,  which  had  no  circumcision,  and  of  all  man- 
kind before  circumcision  was  instituted,  and  you  will  perceive, 
I  think,  the  nature  of  sacraments  to  be,  not  as  medicines,  but  as 
seals,  to  confirm  the  covenant,  not  to  confer  the  promise  immedi- 
atel5^"  "  Though  we  were  to  admit,"  says  Calvin,  "  that  Christ 
here  [in  John  iii.  5]  speaks  of  baptism,  yet  we  ought  not  to  press 
His  words  so  closely  as  to  imagine  that  He  confines  salvation  to 
the  outward  sign,  but,  on  the  contrar}-.  He  connects  the  water  with 
the  Spiiit,  because  under  that  visible  sj'mbol  He  attests  and  seals 
that  newness  of  life  which  God  alone  produces  in  us  by  the  Spirit. 
It  is  true,  that,  by  neglecting  baptism,  we  are  excluded  from  salva- 
tion ;  and  in  this  sense  I  acknowledge  that  it  is  necessary :  but 
it  is  absurd  to  speak  of  the  hope  of  salvation  as  confined  to  the 
sign.     So  far  as  relates  to  this  passage,  I  cannot  bring  myself  to 


358  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

beliere  that  Christ  speaks  of  baptism  ;  for  it  would  have  been  in- 
appropriate. According!}^,  He  employed  Spirit  and  water  to  mean 
the  same  thing :  and  this  ought  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  harsh  or 
forced  interpretation ;  for  it  is  a  frequent  and  common  way  of 
speaking  in  Scriptm'e,  when  the  Spuit  is  mentioned,  to  add  the 
word  water  or  fire,  expressing  His  power ;  as  in  the  statement, 
'  Baptized  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fii'e,'  where  fii*e  means  nothing 
different  from  the  Spirit,  but  only  shows  what  is  His  efficacy  in  us. 
As  to  the  word  '  water '  being  placed  first,  it  is  of  httle  consequence  ; 
or  rather  this  mode  of  speaking  flows  more  naturally  than  the 
other,  because  the  metaphor  is  followed  by  a  plain  and  direct 
statement :  as  if  Christ  had  said  that  no  man  is  a  son  of  God 
untn  he  has  been  renewed  by  water,  and  that  this  water  is 
the  Spuit  who  cleanseth  us  anew,  and  who,  by  spreading  His 
energy  over  us,  imparts  to  us  the  vigor  of  the  heavenly  life,  though 
b}^  nature  we  are  utterly  dry.  .  .  .  By  water,  therefore,  is  meant 
nothing  more  than  the  inward  purification  and  invigoration  which 
is  produced  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  "Had  our  divine  Teacher," 
says  Booth,  "when  He  declared  it  absolutely  necessary  to  be 
'  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,'  intended  the  ordinance  of  baptism 
by  the  term  water,  then,  indeed,  the  necessity  of  that  institution 
would  have  unavoidably  followed,  as  being  placed  on  a  level  with 
the  renewing  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But,  were  that  the  sense 
of  our  Lord,  it  would  unavoidably  follow  that  a  positive  rite  is  of 
equal  necessity  with  the  renovating  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit ; 
that  the  salvation  of  infants  in  many  cases  is  rendered  impossible, 
because  numbers  of  them  are  no  sooner  born  than  they  expire ; 
that  the  eternal  happiness  of  all  who  die  in  infanc}^  must  depend, 
not  onl}^  on  the  devout  care  of  their  parents,  but  also  on  the 
presence  and  pious  benevolence  of  administrators  ;  that  all  the 
djing  infants  of  Jews,  of  Mohammedans,  and  of  Pagans,  are  in- 
volved in  final  ruin  ;  and  that  multitudes  of  adults  must  also  perish 
merely  for  the  want  of  baptism.  But  who  can  imagine  that  the 
Lord  should  place  our  immortal  interests  on  such  a  footing  as 
neither  tends  to  illustrate  the  grace  of  God,  nor  to  promote  the 
comfort  of  man? — on  such  a  footing  as  is  quite  inimical  to  the  spuit 
of  that  maxim,  hy  grace  ye  are  saved,  and  has  no  aptitude  to  excite 
vii'tuous  tempers  in  the  human  heart?  A  sentiment  of  this  kind 
is  chiefly  adapted  to  enhance  the  importance  of  the  clerical  char- 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  359 

acter,  and  to  make  mankind  consider  themselves  as  under  infinite 
obligations  to  a  professional  order  of  their  fellow-mortals  for  an 
interest  in  everlasting  blessedness."  Yet  the  "judicious  Hooker  " 
is  probably  correct  when  he  says,  "  that,  of  all  the  ancients,  there 
is  not  one  to  be  named  that  did  otherwise  either  expomad  or  allege 
the  place  than  as  impljdng  external  baptism."  The  fathers  cer- 
tainly held,  that,  as  a  general  thing,  no  one  could  be  saved  without 
baptism  ;  yei  none  of  them,  we  think,  held  that  all  the  baptized, 
or  baptismally  regenerated,  would  be  saved.  Even  the  modern 
"  Tractarians  "  or  Pusejites  will,  as  we  have  seen,  generally  con- 
cede that  baptismal  regeneration  may  become  of  no  effect,  that 
the  heaven-born  life  within  the  baptized  may  expire,  and  that 
baptism  may  thus  minister  to  one's  final  condemnation.  It  is 
almost  needless  to  say  that  this  alleged  universal  inseparable  bap- 
tismal regeneration  and  the  divine  absolute  predestination  do  but 
my  consort  together.  An  Augustine,  for  example,  will  hold  that 
many  are  born  by  baptism  into  the  kingdom  of  grace  only  to 
perish ;  while  a  Calvin  will  maintain  that  baptism  in  the  case  of 
the  non-elect  is  but  an  unmeaning  ceremony.  The  one,  in  the 
words  of  Dr.  Schaff,  beheves  in  a  fruitless  regeneration ;  the  other, 
in  an  ineffectual  baptism.  The  one  puts  delusion  in  inward  effect ; 
the  other,  in  outward  form.  "The  sacramental,  churchly  S3'stem 
throws  the  main  stress  upon  baptismal  regeneration,  to  the  injury 
of  the  eternal  election ;  the  Cahanistic  and  Puritan  system  sacri- 
fices the  virtue  of  the  sacrament  to  the  election  ;  the  Lutheran  and 
Anglican  system  seeks  a  middle  ground,  without  being  able  to  give 
a  satisfactory  theological  solution  of  the  problem.  The  Anghcan 
Church  allows  the  two  opposite  views,  and  sanctions  the  one  in 
the  baptismal  service  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer ;  the  other 
in  her  thirty- nine  Articles,  which  are  moderately  Calvinistic" 
(Dr.  Schaff's  "  History  of  Ancient  Christianity,"  vol.  ii.  p.  1025  ; 
also  his  "  Creeds  of  Christendom,"  vol.  i.  p.  641).  On  the  sub- 
ject of  baptismal  regeneration,  pro  and  con^  the  reader  may  con- 
sult Dr.  Pusey's  "Tracts  for  the  Times,"  No.  67;  "The  Doc- 
trine of  Holy  Baptism,"  by  R.  I.  Wilberforce ;  "The  Doctrine 
of  the  Church  of  England  as  to  the  Effects  of  Baptism  in  the  Case 
of  Infants,"  by  TV.  Goode  ;  and  "  The  Treatise  on  Baptism,"  by 
Bishop  Alfred  Lee  of  Delaware,  Th6  latter  is,  in  most  respects, 
an  admirable  httle  work. 


360  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

If,  however,  the  birth  of  water  refer  to  the  rite  of  water-baptism, 
then  tills  passage  (John  iii.  5),  if  we  suppose  the  "kingdom  of 
God  "  to  be  His  heavenly  kingdom,  is,  perhaps,  but  equivalent  in 
meaning  to  Mark  svl.  16:  "He  that  belleveth  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved."  Both  things  are,  by  divine  command,  made  ob- 
ligatory upon  all  who  hear  the  gospel,  and  who,  through  divine 
help,  are  enabled  personally  to  ohej.  In  this  sense  we  may  regard 
baptism,  the  required  outward  expression  and  confession  of  an 
inward  change,  as  necessary  to  salvation :  it  is  certainty  one  prin- 
cipal part  of  that  confession  of  Christ  before  men  which  is  made 
virtually  essential  to  salvation  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  "It  is 
not,"  says  Rev.  J.  T.  Smith  in  his  article  entitled  "  Interior  Facts 
of  Baptism  "  ("  Baptist  Quarterly,"  1872,  p.  217),  "a  confession 
of  Christ,  one  of  a  thousand  which  ma}^  and  should  be  made  at  all 
fit  times  and  places,  but  the  confession  of  Christ  made,  not  for  the 
hour  or  the  single  occasion,  to  endure  while  the  present  impulse 
lasts,  but  public,  before  three  worlds,  — for  life,  for  death,  and  for 
eternity.  ...  It  is  more  than  words :  it  is  action  most  signifi- 
cant and  decisive.  It  is  the  disciple  lifting  up  the  banner  of  the 
cross,  the  flag  he  will  never  furl,  will  never  desert,  will  never  be- 
tray, will  never  cease  to  hold  up,  until  he  falls  in  death.  Such  is 
baptism  as  an  ordinance,  and  such  the  confession  implied  in  obe- 
dience to  it.  Its  full  import  as  an  ordinance  can  be  discerned  only 
as  we  keep  in  view  its  character  as  symbol.  The  confession  in 
baptism  is  never  fnllj  made  unless  the  s^-mbolical  import  of  bap- 
tism is  seen  and  recognized.  As  symbol  it  at  once  folds  up  in 
itself,  and  publishes  to  the  world,  the  entire  evangelical  doctrine 
of  Christ  in  His  person  and  work,  the  great  facts  on  which  salva- 
tion rests,  the  substance  of  salvation  itself  as  a  personal  experi- 
ence, and  its  final  and  endless  results.  And  so  the  disciple,  with 
a  true  faith  in  Christ,  and  in  obedience  to  His  ordinance,  makes,  in 
the  act  itself  of  baptism,  confession  to  the  world  of  this  entire 
body  of  evangelical  truth."  ^     "Whosoever,  therefore,  shall  con- 

1  To  the  above  the  writer  adds,  "  If,  now,  to  this  confessional  element  in 
baptism,  with  its  unspeakably  important  bearings  upon  the  glory  of  Christ 
in  the  world,  considered  also  as  including  its  wonderful  symbolical  character, 
we  add  its  use  as  a  sign  and  a  seal,  we  have  a  sufficient  basis  for  all  the 
representations  made  of  it  in  the  Scriptures.  Considering  that  baptism  is 
the  sign  which  marks,  both  to  the  church  and  the  world,  the  disciple  of 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  361 

fess  me  before  men,  him  will  I  confess  also  before  my  Father  who 
is  in  heaven."  "It  is  necessary,"  saj^s  Dr.  Hovey  in  his  "  Man- 
ual of  Theolog}^,"  p.  255,  "  to  bear  in  mind,  that,  in  the  apostolic 
age,  it  was,  as  a  rule,  indispensable  (1)  to  be  baptized  in  the 
name  of.  Christ  in  order  to  confess  Him  before  men,  and  (2) 
to  confess  Him  before  men  in  order  to  be  saved  by  Him.  By 
the  limiting  clause,  as  a  rule,  we  design  to  except  such  cases  as 
follow :  (a)  those  who  had  not  bodily  health  or  strength  to  be 
baptized ;  (&)  those  who  could  not  find  a  suitable  person  to 
baptize  them ;  (c)  those  who  were  prevented  from  receiving  it  by 
their  parents ;  (d)  those  who  were  prevented  solely  b}''  a  distrust 
of  their  own  piety.  Baptism  has  never  been  a  prerequisite  to 
salvation,  except  as  obedience  to  the  known  will  of  Christ  is  such 
a  prerequisite."  This  last  clause,  we  think,  bears  somewhat 
upon  the  case  of  our  Pedobaptist  brethren,  whom  we  deem  to  be 
unbaptized,  as  also  of  Baptists,  who  are  acknowledged  to  be  Chris- 
tians, and  are  yet  declared  by  Dr.  Dale,  and  perhaps  by  some  few 
others,  to  be  "without  any  baptism."  Professor  Pepper,  in  his 
article  on  "  The  Mutual  Relation  of  Baptism  and  the  Communion," 
in  "  Baptist  Quarterly  "  for  April,  1872,  p.  167,  has  the.  following 
relating  in  part  to  this  point:  "As  an  unregenerate  man,  for  a 
base  purpose,  may  perform  the  outward  act  [of  baptism],  so  a 
regenerate  man,  with  the  true  baptismal  spirit  of  obedielice,  under 
the  true  baptismal  conditions,  and  with  the  true  baptismal  design, 
may,  through  error,  perform  another  than  the  prescribed  external 


Christ  as  His;  that  it  recognizes  as  existing  fact,  tliat  whereas  he  was  by 
nature  an  heir  of  hell,  being  alien  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  stran- 
ger to 'the  covenant  of  promise,  having  no  hope,  and  without  God  in  the 
world,  he  is  now  an  heir  of  heaven,  and  a  redeemed  child  of  God ;  consider- 
ing that  the  visible  church,  being  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  world,  in  which 
the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  dwells,  is  in  truth  Christ  in  the  world, 
into  visible  union  with  which  baptism  brings  him,  thus  sealing  to  him  all 
the  promises  and  all  the  blessings  which  God  has  pledged  to  the  church,  — 
what  more  do  we  need  to  account  for  the  terms  and  expressions  by  wliich 
baptism  is  set  forth  to  us  in  the  New  Testament  ?  " 

When,  as  is  sometimes  the  case,  baptism  is  disparagingly  spoken  of  as  a 
"mere  sign,"  a  "meke  symbol,"  there  probably  is  a  failure  to  realize  of 
what  great  things  it  is  a  sign  or  symbol.  Baptism  is  also  a  pledge,  as  well 
as  a  symbol,  an  "  oath  of  allegiance,"  a  public  and  solemn  engaging  or 
devoting  of  one's  self  to  God  for  time  and  for  eternity. 


362  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

act.  In  the  sphere  of  the  outward,  this  man  is  all  wrong ;  in  the 
sphere  of  the  spiritual  alone,  he  is  all  right.  Baptism  as  a  visible 
ordinance  he  has  not.  To  the  eye  of  man,  for  which  the  outward 
rite  was  prescribed,  he  is  unbaptized.  As  he  stands  before  the 
eye  of  God,  in  the  realm  of  spmt,  he  has  obeyed  the  command  to 
be  baptized.  .  .  .  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  assumption  that 
only  the  immersed  have  been  baptized  implies  neither  that  all  the 
immersed  have  been  truly  baptized,  nor  that  aU  not  immersed  are 
still  acting  in  a  spirit  of  disobedience  to  the  Lord.  "We  pass  no 
such  judgment  upon  them,  either  in  thought,  or  by  the  implication 
of  our  words  ;  and  no  man  should  charge  us  with  so  doing." 

If,  however,  the  "kingdom  of  God"  refers  to  Christ's  visible 
kingdom  and  church  on  earth  (which  view,  as  many  think,  is  con- 
firmed by  our  Saviour's  words  to  Nicodemus,  "Ihave  told  you 
earthly  things,"  and  is  not  really  obnoxious  to  Augustine's  ob- 
jection, namely,  that  thus  those  who  are  unregenerated  by  water 
and  the  Spirit  could  ' '  see ' '  this  kingdom,  since  the  seeing  of  the 
kingdom  must,  at  aU  events,  be  regarded  as  something  more  than 
mere  outward  vision),  then  the  teaching  of  Christ's  declaration, 
"Unless  one  be  born  of  water,"  &c.,  is,  that  both  baptism  and  a 
spiritual  renewal  are  "  verily  "  requisite  to  proper  membership  in 
the  church  of  Christ.  "  Hence  Chiist,  in  His  discourse  with  Nico- 
demus, "virtually  said,  '  To  be  a  true  member  of  my  earthly  king- 
dom, 5'ou  must  be  born  again  rituaU}^  and  spiritually ;  you  must 
submit  to  the  rite  of  baptism,  and  experience  a  renovation  of 
heart  by  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  you  must  not  only  confess  me  openly 
in  the  prescribed  way,  which  j'ou  are  unwilling  to  do,  but  must 
also  be  the  subject  of  a  great  spiritual  change  effected  by  the 
power  of  God  (compare  Rom.  x.  9  for  the  same  order  of  thought : 
it  is  the  rhetorical  instead  of  the  logical  order)."  — Dr.  Hovet's 
"Manual  of  Theolog}","  j).  255.  Some  wiiters,  making  a  distinction 
after  the  manner  of  Alexander  Campbell,  have  aflflrmed  that  men 
are  "begotten"  by  the  Spirit  to  a  new  spuitual  life,  and  are 
"born"  of  water  into  the  visible  church  of  Christ.^    Most  com- 

1  See  Ebrard's  Yiew  of  Baptism,  by  Professor  George  E.  Bliss,  in  Baptist 
Quarterly,  vol.  iii.  p.  277.  Professor  Bliss  illustrates  Ebrard's  view  of  the 
efficacy  of  baptism,  and  perhaps  bis  own  view,  by  the  following  figure: 
"  Wbat  tbe  marriage-rite  does  to  perfect  the  union  of  the  espoused  pair 
in  holy  matrimony,  that  baptism  does  in  the  consummation  of  the  xinion 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  S63 

mentators,  "we  may  state,  unhesitatingly  refer  this  "water"  of 
which  we  must  be  born  to  the  water  of  baptism,  and  make  this 
water-baptism  either  procurative  of,  or  significant  of,  regeneration. 
Thus  Dr.  Godet  says,  "  To  accept  baptism  with  water  is  to  be- 
come partaker  of  the  Messianic  pardon."  Henee  he  makes 
"water  and  Spirit"  (equivalent  to  pardon  and  regeneration)  to 
be  "  the  whole  of  salvation,  and  consequently  man's  entrance  into 
the  kingdom  of  God."     Dr.  Gloag  speaks  of  the  water  and  Spirit 

between  Christ  and  the  believing  soul,  wherein  it  lives  no  more  by  itself, 
but  Christ  lives  in  it,  and  its  life  is  Christ.  Thus  baptism  does  not  (any 
more  than  marriage)  mark  the  union  as  before  established,  but  establishes 
it ;  marks  its  establishment  indeed ;  but  not  merely  marks ;  it  guarantees 
and  seals  the  same  for  the  perpetual  contentment  of  the  believer,  and 
as  a  memorial  to  the  God  of  his  salvation  "  (p.  274).  We  may  remark  that 
Ebrard's  views  as  to  the  scriptural  and  legitimate  mode  and  design  of 
baptism  are  so  far  baptistic,  "that  he  has  been  charged,"  as  Professor  Bliss 
states,  "  by  his  brethren,  with  '  baptistic  tendencies,'  in  consequence  of  the 
publication  of  these  sentiments,  especially  taken  in  connection  with  his 
clear  denial  of  the  sacramental  character  and  divine  authority  of  infant- 
baptism." 

And  here  we  cannot  forbear  to  add  the  following  from  Professor  Bliss, 
as  showing  how  desirous  for  "union  among  believers,"  and  how  con- 
cessive in  spirit,  a  Baptist  "  exclusivist "  maybe:  "  To  all  thus  believing 
everywhere  we  extend  our  cordial  sympathy ;  and  to  all  acting  consistently 
with  such  faith,  and  from  all,  we  offer  and  ask  fellowship.  Indeed,  we  are 
sanguine  enough  to  think  that  we  see,  in  the  proclamation  of  such  views  in 
such  a  quarter,  hopeful  tokens  of  a  union  among  believers  in  the  profession 
of  Christianity,  such  as  many  of  the  best  are  sighing  after,  but  often,  it 
would  appear,  without  an  inkling  of  the  way  in  which  it  is  to  be  brought 
about.  This  we  say  without  thinking  for  a  moment,  that,  in  *  the  peace 
which  yet  shall  be,'  all  Christians  differing  from  us  must  adopt  specifically 
Baptist  sentiments,  —  wheel  into  line  on  our  left,  while  we  stand  as  the 
pivotal  centre,  —  or  in  any  way  succumb  to  us.  We  mean,  rather,  that  we 
see  ground  of  hope  in  the  disposition,  here  so  signally  manifested,  to  refer 
questions  pertaining  to  the  constitution  and  ordinances  of  the  church,  direct- 
ly, candidly,  submissively,  to  the  decision  of  the  Bible.  Thus,  if  ever,  and 
not  otherwise,  is  the  glorious  unity  and  completeness  of  Christ's  'macro- 
cosmic  '  body  to  be  manifested'  to  the  world ;  certainly  not  by  denjing  either 
that  He  has  intelligibly  laid  down  regulative  principles  concerning  the 
essential  organization  and  usage  of  His  churches,  or  that  these  principles 
are  applicable  to  churches  as  they  now  exist.  Most  willingly  do  we  admit, 
most  fervently  hope,  that,  in  such  a  revision  of  the  divine  grounds  of 
ecclesiastical  practice,  we  ourselves  also  may  share  in  any  needed  correc- 
tion." 


364  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

as  "  the  two  great  parts  of  baptism,  — the  sign  and  the  thing  sig- 
nified." Professor  J.  J,  Owen  makes  the  Saviour  say,  "Except 
5'e  receive  the  rite  of  Christian  baptism  and  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit,"  &c.  Luthardt,  in  his  "  Commentary  on  John's  Gospel," 
regards  this  water  of  regeneration,  not  as  a  figurative  designation 
of  the  cleansing  of  the  heart  (Knapp,  Liicke) ,  nor  as  a  figurative 
expression  for  the  Spirit  (Calvin)  or  penitent  soul  (Olshausen), 
but  as  an  indication  to  the  mind  of  Nicodemus  that  ' '  the  baptism 
with  the  Spirit  by  Jesus  is  to  be  added  to  the  baptism  with  water 
which  Nicodemus  knew  from  John."  Tholuck  also  makes  this 
bu'th  of  water  refer  to  John's  baptism ;  though,  if  regarded  as  a 
requisite  to  entrance  into  the  Messianic  kingdom,  its  chief  refer- 
ence, we  should  suppose,  would  naturally  be  to  Christian  baptism. 
In  Tholuck' s  view,  however,  which  corresponds  to  that  of  Neander, 
our  Saviour  did  not  refer  Nicodemus  to  baptism  as  such,  but  only 
allusively  to  the  idea  or  sj'mbolic  signification  of  baptism.  "  The 
water,"  he  says,  "  may  already  have  been  known  to  Nicodemus 
from  the  baptism  of  John,  as  a  symbol  of  the  jpurification  of 
the  inner  man."  A  water-bath  does,  indeed,  natm'allj^  give  rise 
to  the  idea  of  pmification  and  cleansing,  much  more  naturall}^, 
we  should  sa}^,  than  to  the  idea  of  bu'th.  Still  we  think  it  probable 
that  our  Saviour,  b}'  using  the  phrase  "  born  of  water,"  may  very 
naturall}^  have  had  some  reference  to  the  idea  of  baptism. 

We  quote,  in  closing,  the  explanation  of  this  passage  given  by 
Dr.  Ripley,  who,  it  will  be  perceived,  finds  no  reference  in  the 
water -birth  to  the  baptismal  rite.  In  his  "  Notes  on  the  Gospels  " 
(m  loc.)  he  saj's,  "  This  much- controverted  passage,  born  of 
water,  admits  of  a  simple  and  easy  explanation  when  brought 
into  comparison  with  a  similar  phrase  used  by  this  evangehst  in 
i.  rS  ;  namel}',  horn  of  blood.  By  this  latter  phrase  natural  birth 
is  meant.  The  existence  of  man  in  this  world  by  natural  birth, 
with  all  his  sinful  propensities,  is  here  traced  to  the  element  men- 
tioned as  an  originating  cause.  Now,  in  the  expression,  born  of 
water,  a  difierent  element  is  brought  to  ^4ew  as  the  originating 
cause  of  a  new'  birth  to  a  spiritual,  holy  existence.  This  element, 
water,  was  the  usual  emblem  and  means  of  purity.  While,  then, 
to  be  born  of  blood  means  to  be  born  a  human  being,  with  all  the 
corrupt  propensities  of  human  nature,  to  be  born  of  water  means 
to  commence  a  holy  existence  originated  from  a  pure  and  holy 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  365 

source.  This  view  presents  a  suitable  reply  to  the  question  of 
Nicodemus  in  the  preceding  verse ;  for  to  be  born  from  the  womb 
(v.  6),  in  the  ordinary  course  of  nature,  is  another  mode  of  say- 
ing to  be  born  of  blood  and  of  the  loill  of  the  flesh  (i.  13) .  Now, 
in  order  to  convey  to  Nicodemus  a  just  view  of  this  new  birth,  our 
Lord,  in  replj^ing  to  the  question  whether  a  second  natural  birth,  a 
being  born  of  blood  and  of  the  flesh,  was  meant,  declared,  'A  man, 
in  order  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  must  be  born  again, 
not  of  blood  and  of  the  flesh,  but  of  ivater  and  of  the  Spirit;'  that 
is,  he  must  experience,  not  a  natural  birth,  but  a  spuitual  one,  — 
a  birth  originating,  not  from  an  element  of  impurity,  but  from  a 
pure  source.  Water  appears  to  have  been  here  mentioned  by  our 
Saviour  as  indicating  a  pure  source  of  a  new  spiritual  life  in  man. 
He  immediately  adds  an  expression  of  similar  import,  mentioning 
in  plain  language  the  author  of  this  new  birth.  .  .  .  The  whole 
phrase,  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  may  signif}^  a  spiritual  birth 
effected  by  a  divine  agent,  just  as  the  phrase,  born  of  blood  and  of 
the  flesh,  signifies  natural  birth  effected  by  a  human  agent." 


366  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTEE  XXXII. 

A  RETROSPECTIVE  VIEW. — "CHRISTIAN  UNION." 

WITH  this  chapter  we  conclude  our  review  of  Dr.  Dale, 
and  our  discussion  of  the  baptismal  question.  Professor 
J.  A.  Broadus,  in  a  notice  of  Dr.  Dale's  volumes  in  "  The  Baptist 
Quarterly,"  vol.  ix.  p.  246,  says,  "  Any  reply  to  this  wonderful 
theory  must  be  either  very  brief,  or  immensely  long,  — either  merely 
indicating  the  essential  points  of  dissent,  or  patiently  following 
the  author  through  all  his  details  and  repetitions.  It  is  possible, 
for  aught  we  know,  that  some  Baptist  may,  one  of  these  days, 
have  the  patience  to  reply  in  this  latter  fashion,  if  the  whole  thing 
is  not  too  speedily  set  aside  through  the  returning  good  sense 
of  our  Pedobaptist  brethren."  We  feel  that  we  have  neither  the 
patience  nor  the  perseverance,  and  perhaps  not  the  lack  of  sense, 
which  that  immensely  patient  and  persevering  ' '  Baptist ' '  would 
require  who  should  follow  our  author  ' '  through  all  his  details  and 
repetitions."  We  have  indeed,  in  this  work,  which  was  designed 
to  be  a. general  review  of  Dr.  Dale's  treatise,  rather  than  a  special 
reply,  not  studied  to  be  "very  brief,"  and  have  endeavored  to 
avoid  the  other  very  undesirable  extreme  of  "  immense  length  ;  " 
though  we  fear  that  the  doctor's  diffuse  method  has  led  us  uncon- 
sciously quite  too  near  it.  Our  aim,  moreover,  in  these  Studies 
on  the  Baptismal  Question,  has  been,  not  simply  to  show  up  and 
refute  a  "wonderful  theory,"  but  to  do  a  more  positive  work, — 
to  establish  truth ;  to  remove,  if  possible,  some  difficulties  con- 
nected with  this  subject ;  and  to  present  some  things  in  a  new  and 
clearer  Mght.  Nothing  is  more  tiresome  and  profitless  than  to 
travel  over  the  same  road  which  countless  others  have  travelled, 
meet  with  the  same  ever-recurring  difficulties,  manage  or  treat 
them  in  the  same  way,  and  finall}^  leave  them  about  as  we  found 
them,  to  trouble  others  who  shall  come  after  us. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  367 

Dr.  Dale's  treatise,  as  we  have  said,  is  essentially  baptistic  ;  and 
there  is  in  it  really  but  very  little  which  is  exclusively  opposed  to 
the  "Baptist  theory."  His  own  theory  of  baptismal  "  ideal  ele- 
ments" and  "  controlhng  influence,"  which  he  invented  to  help 
him  in  his  almost  gigantic  effort  to  disengage  baptizo  from  its 
acknowledged  normal  connection  with  immersion,  is  as  much 
opposed  to  Pedobaptist  as  to  Baptist  ^iews  ;  and  yet  to  establish 
this  has  been  the  grand  endeavor  of  his  prolonged  "Inquiry."^ 

1  Just  as  we  were  sending  these  pages  to  press,  we  received  the  Baptist 
Eeview  for  1879,  vol.  1.  No.  1,  containing  an  article  on  Dale's  Theory  of 
Baptism,  by  Professor  H.  Harvey,  D.D.,  of  Hamilton  Theological  Semi- 
nary. He  thus  speaks  of  the  inapplicability  and  contradictoriness  of  this 
"controlling-influence"  theory  to  the  New-Testament  usage  of  baptizo  as 
held  alike  by  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists :  — 

"  The  assumption  that  baptizo  in  religious  usage  does  not  denote  the 
outward  act  has  already  been  shown  to  be  false.  When  John  '  did  baptize 
in  the  wilderness,'  the  act  affirmed  in  the  verb  is  clearly  defined  as  outward 
by  other  passages :  to  translate,  John  '  did  change  the  spiritual  condition  in 
the  wilderness,'  is  to  destroy  the  sense.  When  '  the  multitude '  of  Pharisees 
and  Sadducees  '  came  forth  to  be  baptized  of  him,'  they  certainly  did  not 
come  to  obtain  '  a  thorough  change  of  spiritual  condition ; '  for  John  calls 
them  a  'generation  of  vipers.'  When,  in  speaking  of  the  baptisms  under 
Christ's  ministry,  it  is  said,  '  Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  but  his  disciples,' 
it  is  impossible  to  understand  the  word  of  other  than  outward  baptism ;  for 
surely,  if  baptism  was  'a  change  in  the  spiritual  condition,'  it  must  have 
been  effected  by  Christ,  and  not  by  the  apostles.  When  Paul,  in  writing  to 
the  Corinthians,  declares  that  he  was  not  sent  to  baptize,  and  thanks  God 
that  he  baptized  none  of  them  except  Crispus  and  Gains  and  the  household 
of  Stephanas,  he  surely  does  not  intend  that  '  a  thorough  spiritual  change ' 
in  them  was  not  the  object  of  his  ministry,  nor  that  it  was  a  matter  of 
thanksgiving  to  God  that  this  '  thoroughly  changed  spiritual  condition '  had 
been  wrought  through  him  only  in  the  persons  named.  Such  a  supposition 
is  utterly  absurd.  The  theory  thus  hopelessly  breaks  down  when  tested  by 
actual  New-Testament  usage,  where  baptizo  often  stands  in  relations  such 
as  to  compel  its  expression  of  the  outward  act." 

To  Dale's,  objection  against  regarding  the  meaning  of  baptizo  to  be 
but  a  "bald  repetition"  of  bapto,  to  dip  (which  no  Baptist  scholar 
maintains),  Professor  Harvey  thus  replies:  "As  a  matter  of  fact,  deriva- 
tive words  in  Greek  often  take  the  main  signification  of  the  parent  word, 
and  sometimes,  in  whole  or  part,  supplant  the  parent  word,  because 
the  derivative  has  a  stronger  form,  and  is  on  that  account  preferred. 
Cremer's  Lexicon  will  furnish  any  Greek  scholar  with  numerous  exam- 
ples of  this:  thus  katharizo,  derived  from  kathairo,  to  cleanse;  rhantizo, 
from  rhaino,  to  sprinkle;  methusko,  from  methuo,  to  be  drunk;  these  are 


368  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

Dr.  Dale  puts  forth  tMs  theory  with  considerable  confidence ;  yet 
no  one,  probabty,  would  be  more  surprised  than  himself,  should 
the  next  Greek  lexicon  published  by  German  or  Enghsh  scholars 
give  as  one  of  the  definitions  of  baptizo,  "  to  influence  control- 
lingly."  What  an  outburst  of  laughter  would  such  a  phenomenon 
in  lexicography  occasion  throughout  the  world  !  Another  principal 
achievement  of  his  work,  in  his  own  estimation,  is  the  discovery  (?) 
and  full  exhibition  of  an  important  difference  in  meaning  between 
"dip"  and  "immerse,"  —  a  difference  which,  in  the  main,  any 
Baptist  can  accept  without  sending  the  slightest  "shock"  either 
through  his  own  "  system,"  or  the  "  Baptist  system"  in  general. 
And  a  third  chief  point  in  his  work  is  the  assumption  —  a  deeply 


all  derivatives,  whicli,  in  whole  or  part,  displaced  the  parent  words,  but 
whicli  retained  as  their  most  common  meaning  precisely  the  signification 
of  the  radical  form.  These  are  only  a  few  instances  of  many  that 
might  be  adduced;  and  the  Dale  theory  thus  utterly  fails,  even  in  its  initial 
proposition." 

In  reference  to  this  last  topic,  another  Baptist  scholar,  Professor  Kendrick, 
thus  remarks:  "That  the  two  words  are  entirely  independent,  and  never 
interchanged  in  all  Greek  literature,  no  scholar  would  affirm  for  a  moment. 
Closely  allied  in  origin,  they  cannot  but  have  had  the  same  fundamental 
signification.  That  they  should  continue  wholly  identical  in  meaning  was, 
of  course,  improbable.  Bapto,  the  more  primitive  word,  early  specialized 
itself,  from  dipping  into  a  coloring  fluid,  into  dyeing,  —  a  meaning  which 
need  not  and  did  not  pass  over  to  baptizo.  Baptizo,  on  the  other  hand, 
partly,  perhaps,  from  a  real  or  supposed  causative  force  in  its  ending  [Pro- 
fessor Broadus  prefers  the  term,  factitive],  and  still  more,  we  think,  from 
the  lengthened  and  heavier  character  of  its  form  (analogously  to  the  heavier 
imperfect  forms  as  compared  with  the  lighter  second  aorists),  became  natu- 
rally applied  ordinarily  to  immersions  of  a  more  formal  character  and  longer 
duration;  while  the  shorter  and  lighter  bapto  (like  the  English  dzp)  ordi- 
narily denoted  the  lighter  and  more  transient  immersions.  Thus  arose  the 
distinction  suggested  by  Dr.  Dagg,  giving  a  partial  foundation  for  the  dogma 
of  Mr.  Dale.  But,  in  the  unqualified  form  in  which  Mr.  Dale  states  it,  the 
doctrine  is  totally  untrue ;  and  his  canon,  constructed  on  a  priori  grounds, 
with  no  regard  to  etymology,  and  little  regard  to  usage,  is  largely  false,  and, 
so  far  as  true,  scientifically  worthless.  The  radical  identity  of  the  two 
words  in  meaning  is  determined  by  their  etymological  relationship.  Their 
substantial  identity  of  usage  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  lexicographers  and 
critics  uniformly  render  them  by  the  common  words  mergo,  immergo,  dip, 
immerse,  submerge,  plunge,  &c.,  indiscriminately;  while  their  easy  inter- 
changeableness  can  be  shown  abundantly  from  usage."  — Baptist  Quarterly, 
vol.  iii.  p.  140. 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  369 

baptistic  one  —  that  a  proper  water-baptism  imports  not  only  a 
"  complete  intusposition,"  but  inevitable  drowning.  "We  therefore 
feel  justified  in  regarding  his  treatise  as  essentially  and  strongly 
baptistic.  He  has  labored  through  some  eighteen  hundred  octavo 
pages  to  show  the  world  that  the  only  way  to  get  rid  of  baptism  as 
immersion  is  to  abolish  the  baptismal  rite  altogether.  We  cannot 
but  feel  considerably  thankful  that  Dr.  Dale  has  brouglit  matters 
to  this  issue,  and  that  all  the  host  of  his  learned,  complimenting 
friends  are  likewise  highly  pleased  with  the  same  result.  Yet  how 
suggestive,  and  how  humiliating  too,  is  the  fact  that  so  many  of 
our  leading  and  honored  Pedobaptistic  friends  have  shown  them- 
selves in  past  times  so  read}'  to  adopt  almost  any  novel  theory  which 
the  ingenuity  of  man  can  invent,  provided  only  that  it  seems  to  do 
away  with  immersion  as  baptism !  Though  conflicting  and  mutu- 
ally destructive  as  these  theories  often  are,  they  are  thrust  before 
us,  one  after  another,  with  the  constantly-repeated  challenge,  "  Let 
Baptists  answer  this,  or  else  forever  after  hold  their  peace."  Our- 
good  brethren  will  pardon  us  if  we  point  out  to  them  ' '  a  more 
excellent  waj^-,"  and  one  which  is  not  so  seemingly  discreditable  to- 
their  intelligence  and  judgment. 

But  truly,  if  our  Pedobaptist  friends  go  on  making  concessions,, 
as  Stuart,  Beecher,  and  Dale  have  done,  it  would  seem  that  the 
controversy  might  ere  long  be  ended,  and  we  find  ourselves,  un- 
awares, in  "one  fold."  Eev.  Mr.  Heaton,  indeed,  thinks  that 
some  Pedobaptists  have  conceded  too  much,  in  sajdng,  for  exam- 
ple, that  the  apostles  baptized  by  immersion  ;  and  expects  that  we 
shall  soon  return  the  compliment,  and  acknowledge  "that  sprinkling 
was  the  mode."  But  his  friends  generally  will  have  to  concede  a 
great  deal  more,  than  they  have  jet  done,  not,  indeed,  to  us,  but. 
to  the  truth.  Pedobaptists  in  this  country  have  not  begun  to- 
make  such  free  concessions  to  the  "  Baptist  theory  "  as  they  have 
done  in  the  Old  World  and  in  past  ages.  The  followers  of  Luther' 
and  Calvin  in  this  land,  as  a  general  thing,  lag  far  behind  the 
great  reformers  in  this  matter.^     Still   a   silent  revolution,  we 

1  "The  other  thing,"  says  Luther,  " which  belongs  to  baptism, is  the  sign 
or  the  sacrament,  which  is  immersion  in  water;  from  whence,  also,  it  derives- 
its  name;  for  haptizo  in  Greek  is  mergo  (immerse)  in  Latin,  and  baptism  is- 
immersion.  ,  .  .  Baptism  is  a  sign  both  of  death  and  resurrection.  Being: 
moved  by  this  reason,  I  would  have  those  who  are  to  be  baptized  to  be- 


370  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

believe,  is  going  on ;  and  the  writings  of  Stuart,  Beeclier,  and 
Dale,  and  especially  our  own  Professor  Conant,  are  fast  bring- 
ing this  controversy  to  a  decided  issue.  We  believe  that  ere 
long  the  best-informed  Christian  scholars  of  other  denominations 
wiU,  as  a  more  excellent  way,  unite  with  Calvin  of  a  past  age, 
and  with  Stanley  and  Pressens6  of  our  own,  in  acknowledging 
that  the  primitive  and  proper  baptism  was  inunersion,  but  that, 
in  our  altered  circumstances  of  chmate  and  customs,  the  form  of 
the  rite  is  comparatively  unessential,  and  may  be  varied,  pro- 
vided the  truth  be  recognized,  and  "  the  spirit  of  the  gospel "  be 


altogether  dipped  into  the  water,  as  the  word  doth  express  and  the  mystery 
doth  signify;  not  because  I  think  it  necessary,  but  because  it  would  be 
beautiful  to  have  a  full  and  perfect  sign  of  so  perfect  and  full  a  thing ;  as 
also,  WITHOUT  DOUBT,  IT  WAS  INSTITUTED  BY  Chkist  "  (Luther's  Works, 
vol.  ii.  pp.  272,  273,  De  Captivate  Babylonica  Ecclesise).  "The  name  bap- 
tism is  Greek:  in  Latin  it  can  be  rendered  mersio,  immersion,  when  we 
immerse  any  thing  into  water,  that  it  may  be  wholly  covered  with  water. 
And  although  that  custom  has  now  grown  out  of  use  with  most  persons 
(nor  do  they  wholly  submerge  children,  but  only  pour  on  a  little  water),  yet 
they  ought  to  be  entirely  immersed,  and  immediately  drawn  out ;  for  this 
the  etymology  of  the  name  seems  to  demand.  The  Germans  call  baptism 
Tauff,  from  depth,  which  they  call  Tieff  in  their  language,  as  if  it  were 
proper  that  those  should  be  deeply  immersed  who  are  baptized.  And  indeed, 
if  you  consider  what  baptism  signifies,  you  will  see  that  the  same  thing  is 
required ;  for  this  signifies  that  the  old  man  and  our  sinful  natuje,  which 
consists  of  flesh  and  blood,  is  all  submerged  by  divine  grace.  .  .  .  The  mode 
of  baptizing  ought,  therefore,  to  correspond  to  the  signification  of  baptism, 
so  as  to. set  forth  a  sure  and  full  sign  of  it."  — M.  Lutheei,  Opera  Omnia, 
vol.  i.  p.  319,  seq.,  Be  Sacramento  Baptismi. 

Similar  to  this  is  the  testimony  of  Calvin.  "From  these  words"  (con- 
cerning ^non,  John  iii.  23)  "  we  may  infer  that  John  and  Christ  adminis- 
tered baptism  by  plunging  the  whole  body  beneath  the  water."  And  on 
Acts  viii.  38,  "  They  descended  into  the  water,"  he  says,  "Here  we  see  the 
rite  used  among  the  men  of  old  time  in  baptism ;  for  they  put  all  the  body 
into  the  water."  And  in  his  Institutes  of  the  Christian  Eeligion,  iv.  15, 
19,  he  says,  "But  whether  the  person  who  is  to  be  baptized  be  wholly 
immersed,  and  whether  thrice  or  once,  or  whether  water  be  only  poured  or 
sprinkled  upon  him,  is  of  no  importance :  churches  ought  to  be  left  at  liberty, 
in  this  respect,  to  act  according  to  the  difference  of  countries.  Quanquam 
et  ipsiim  baptizandi  verbum  mergere  significat,  et  mergendi  ritum  veteri 
ecclesise  observatum  fuisse  constat.  The  very  word  baptize,  however,  sig- 
nifies to  immerse ;  and  it  is  certain  that  immersion  was  the  practice  of  the 
ancient  church." 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  371 

retained.^  Even  now  we  are  willing  to  leave  this  matter  of  the 
"  mode  "  to  the  "  thoroughly- trained  Grsecists  "  of  the  different  de- 
nominations, letting  them  do  what  Professor  Conant  has  done  in  his 
"  Baptizein,"  —  translate  the  one  hundred  and  sixty-eight  examples 
of  baptizo,  and  as  many  more  as  they  can  find  in  the  "Greek 
writers,  including  the  church  fathers  when  they  do  not  speak  of  the 
Christian  rite,"  deducing  therefrom  the  fundamental  or  "ground 
meaning  "  of  the  word,  and  then  simply  affirming,  whether,  in  their 
view,  such  meaning  is  absolutely  incompatible  with  the  use  of  bap- 
tizo in  any  instance  in  the  New  Testament.  We  beheve  that  tJieir 
Baptizeins  would  be  pretty  effective  Baptist  treatises.  Professor 
Stuart  has  ah-eady  given  his  opinion  on  this  matter,  and  says,  "  I 
find  no  passage  in  the  New  Testament,  I  am  quite  ready  to  concede, 
which  seems  absolutely  to  determine  that  immersion  was  not  prac- 
tised." This  declaration  was  made  after  his  investigation  of  the 
classical  usage  of  baptizo,  and  his  acknowledgment  that  '•'•bapto 
and  baptizo  mean  to  dip,  plunge,  or  immerse  into  any  thing  liquid. 
All  lexicographers  are  agreed  in  this."  Dr.  Dale  also,  as  we  have 
seen,  has  tried  his  hand  at  translating  the  baptizo  of  the  classics  ; 
and  even  he  can  find  no  better  representative  word  than  ' '  sierse 
(immekse)."  The  reason  why  he  hesitates  to  introduce  the  ordi- 
nary literal  import  of  this  word  into  the  Scriptures  is  his  tender 
regard  for  the  safety  of  human  life.  He  fears  "  death  by  drown- 
ing"! 

What  we  have  written  has  been  designedly  in  the  interest,  not 
only  of  truth,  but  of  charity  and  "Christian  union;"  and  we 
trust  that  those  who  may  differ  from  us,  j-ea,  even  "  the  hardiest  of 
our  opponents,"  will  yet  discover  nothing  in  these  writings  which 
is  alien  to  the  Christian  spirit.  We  are  thankful  that  Christians 
of  different  names  can  "  agree  to  differ,"  and  can  be  trul}^  united 
in  heart,  even  where  there  is  no  outM^ard  church-communion  or 
church-fellowship.  "We  refuse  not,"  sa3's  Professor  Kiple^"  in 
his  review  of  Dr.  Griffin's  "  Letter  on  Communion,"  "to  associate 
at  the  Lord's  table  with  other  Christians,  because  we  are  bigoted 


1  Even  the  rite  itself  may  not  be  essential  to  salvation,  and  yet  the  form 
of  tlie  rite  may  be  a  very  essential  matter.  ''In  symbolical  language,"  says 
Dr.  Hovey,  "the  form  is  essential,  for  it  expresses  the  meaning:  the  form, 
of  the  rite  is  the  rite,  for  the  rite  itself  is  a  form." 


372  STUDIES  ON  BAPTI83L 

or  selfish,  or  because  "we  wish  '  to  shut  our  adherents  in  by  a  sort 
of  impassable  gulf.'  The  practice  for  which  we  are  censured  is 
not  recommended  to  us,  except  by  a  regard  to  what  we  think  the 
will  of  the  Lord.  JSTor  is  the  practice  at  all  inconsistent  with  the 
purest  and  most  generous  Christian  lore ;  for  we  can  lore  our 
brethi'en  with  pure  hearts  fervently,  while  yet  we  do  not  join  with 
them  in  every  religious  obser^'ance.  There  are  occasions,  and 
those  of  perpetual  occuiTence,  on  which  the  expressions  of  Chris- 
tian affection  are  less  questionably  genuine  than  the  occasion 
afforded  by  celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper.  Our  practice  does  not 
imply  want  of  love  for  the  disciples  of  the  Lord :  it  imphes  con- 
scientious adherence  to  principles  which  we  think  om-  Lord  has 
estabUshed  in  His  church.  Nor  is  our  practice  at  all  inconsistent 
with  the  fact  that  all  true  Christians  will  commune  together  in 
heaven ;  for  the  communion  of  soul  which  the  redeemed  will  enjoy 
in  heaven  is  a  different  thing  from  celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper." 
And,  in  his  review  of  Rev.  Albert  Barnes'  pamphlet  on  "  Exclu- 
sivism,"  the  same  author,  alike  distinguished  for  his  Christian 
gentleness  and  his  Chiistian  fii'mness,  thus  remarks:  "This  is 
exactly  the  position  which  a  Baptist  is  compelled  to  take  by  his 
honest  and  conscientious  convictions  ;  and  though  aU  the  Chris- 
tian world,  from  the  extreme  of  Eoman  Cathohcism,  through  aU 
national  and  state  churches  with  their  ine\dtable  corruptions,  to 
the  orthodoxy,  purity,  efficiency,  and  lovehness  of  a  New-England 
Congregationahst,  join  hands  against  him  in  this  particular,  he 
cannot  renounce  his  fealty  to  Chiist ;  he  cannot,  by  word  or  deed, 
acknowledge  as  a  New-Testament  ordinance  an  act ' '  (infant-bap- 
tism) "which  has  not  the  shadow  of  a  proof  that  it  proceeded 
from  Christ.  There,  then,  — at  least,  so  far  as  the  proposal  before 
us  "  (of  "  a  recognition  of  the  ordinances  of  all  other  denomina- 
tions that  hold  the  essential  truths  of  the  gospel")  "  provides,  — 
the  Baptists  must  stand  for  the  present,  working  laboriously,  work- 
ing lovingly,  and,  so  far  as  they  and  others  have  attained,  walking 
by  the  same  rule,  and  minding  the  same  things  with  them,  joining 
heart  and  hand  wherever  the}'  can,  receiving  light  from  every 
quarter,  and  endeavoring  to  spread  all  around  them  whatever  Hght 
they  may  possess.  ...  In  my  humble  judgment,  the  Christian 
who  cherishes  the  true  spirit  of  the  gospel  in  his  own  sphere,  and 
embraces  in  his  heart,  even  though  he  may  not  feel  warranted  to 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  373 

invite  to  his  Master's  table,  every  other  genuine  disciple  of  Christ, 
and  who  is  read}^  to  say  God  speed  to  every  good  work  and  to 
every  human  being  who  is  engaged  in  it,  to  associate  with  others 
wherever  he  can,  to  separate  only  where  he  must,  and  onl}^  so  long 
as  he  must,  is  doing  much  for  charity  and  mutual  happiness,  and 
for  winning  souls  to  Christ.  Such  union  is  worth  having,  and  is 
too  full  of  promise  to  be  hazarded  :  it  is  incalculabl}'  more  valuable 
than  any  conventual  union,  or  an}'  union  which  maj-  grow  out  of 
alliances  and  compromises,  and  which  may,  therefore,  be  shadow, 
rather  than  substance,  and,  while  it  has  a  name  that  it  hves,  may 
be  dead."  Rev.  J.  Wheaton  Smith,  D.D.,  in  his  "Letter  to 
Rev.  Albert  Barnes  in  answer  to  '  Exclusivism,'  "  thus  speaks: 
"  We  love  and  fellowship  the  living  [referring  to  certain  eminent 
Pedobaptist  Christians]  as  faitliful  followers  of  Christ ;  we  cherish 
the  memorj''  of  those  who  have  gone,  and  reckon  them  among  the 
saints  made  perfect :  but  we  square  both  the  living  and  the  dead 
by  the  Scripture.  We  cannot  alter  the  words  of  Jesus  out  of 
reverence  for  either.  .  .  .  Nor  can  we  invite  any  of  om*  Christian 
brethren,  who  in  our  view  remain  unbaptized,  to  our  communion. 
We  love  and  fellowship  them  as  Christians,  and  thank  them  for 
a  zeal  and  pietj^  which  is  often  worthy  of  our  emulation  ;  3-et  we 
cannot  with  a  good  conscience  be  unmindful  of  plain  scriptural 
requirements.  But  in  this  are  we  more  exclusive  than  our  breth- 
ren? You  claim  as  strongly  as  we  that  baptism  in  your  seuse  of 
the  term  is  a  prerequisite  to  communion.  You  would  not  invite  a 
man,  however  great  or  good,  to  the  communion  of  the  Presbj'terian 
Church,  who  refused  to  submit  himself  to  what  yoit  call  baptism. 
We  do  but  the  same.  The  simple  question  is,  What  is  baptism? 
...  If  sprinkling  is  baptism,  we  are  justly  condemned ;  if  it  is 
not,  we  are  acquitted."  In  reference  to  another  charge.  Dr.  Smith 
says,  "We  think  they  [Pedobaptist  churches]  are  deficient  in 
respect  to  baptism,  and  in  some  other  things  besides ;  but  we  do 
not,  in  consequence,  '  unchurch  them.'  We  believe  that  baptism 
is  the  scriptural  mode  of  admission  into  a  church ;  if  you  please, 
the  door  into  the  church.  But  a  church  is  something  more  than 
baptism,  as  a  house  is  more  than  a  door ;  and,  as  a  man  may  enter 
a  house  without  going  in  b}-  the  door,  so  a  Christian  ma}-  enter  a 
church  ly  some  other  than  the  scriptural  way.  It  is  true,  his  mode 
of  entrance  was  irregular  and  disorderly  ;  but  still  he  is  in."    "  The 


374  STUDIES  OK  BAPTISM. 

Baptists  of  America,"  remarks  Professor  Pepper,  "who  restrict 
their  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  to  those  believed  by 
them  to  be  baptized,  are  not  indifferent  to  Christian  union.  For 
this  union  they  contend  in  this  very  act  of  restriction.  They  do 
not  act  arbitrarily  and  capriciously,  but  upon  principles  which 
commend  themselves  to  the  judgment  as  both  reasonable  and 
scriptural.  They  are  not  justly  charged  with  '  Papal  assumption ; ' 
for  they  dictate  to  others  no  law  of  action,  and  wish  to  compel 
others  to  no  violation  of  conscience :  but  they  claim  that  Christ  has 
given  a  law  for  all,  and  that  they  as  well  as  others  must  determine 
what  that  law  requires,  and  to  those  requirements  give  unquestion- 
ing obedience.  They  do  not  beheve  that  Christ's  ordinances  have 
lost  their  value,  or  that  the  division  that  prevails  is  harmless, 
much  less  desirable."  Professor  Kendrick,  near  the  close  of  a 
somewhat  caustic  review  of  Rev.  Philippe  Wolff's  "Baptism,  the 
Covenant,  and  the  Family"  (see  "Christian  Re^dew"  for  April, 
1863,  p.  294),  yet  says,  "For  that  body  collectively  [for  whose 
cause  Mr.  Wolff  has  written]  we  cherish  only  affection  and  respect. 
We  differ  from  them  in  a  matter  of  Scripture  rite  ;  but  the  differ- 
ence is  not  a  vital  one.  It  separates  us  from  them  in  church 
organization ;  but  it  interposes  no  barrier  to  om'  spiritual  com- 
munion. We  share  with  them  the  same  Christian  labors,  we  render 
allegiance  to  the  same  Lord,  we  anticipate  the  same  Jieavenly 
blessedness.  We  say  of  their  community,  in  the  same  sense  as 
we  say  of  our  own,  — 

*  There  our  best  friends,  our  kindred,  dwell; 
There  God  our  Saviour  reigns.' 

Of  them  as  a  people  we  have  no  hard  things  to  utter,  nor  of  any 
among  them,  who,  in  a  spirit  of  Christian  courtesy,  either  defends 
their  position,  or  assails  ours."  Professor  A.  N.  Arnold,  in  his 
"  Scriptural  Terms  of  Admission  to  the  Lord's  Supper,"  thus  avers  : 
"  We  do  have  communion  on  earth  with  all  who  love  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  whether  Baptists  or  Pedobaptists :  we  have  spuitual 
fellowship  with  them  all. "  "  So  far  are  we , "  says  Rev.  H.  F.  Colby, 
' '  from  denying  that  members  of  Pedobaptist  churches  are  good 
Christians,  that  we  love  and  honor  them  as  brethi'en,  servants  of 
the  same  Master  with  om'selves.  We  do  not  sa}^  that  they  are  not 
just  as  good  Christians  as  we  are ;  nay,  our  i)osition  concerning 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  375 

the  Lord's  Supper  does  not  declare  that  they  may  not  be,  on  the 
whole,  better  Christians  than  we  are,  more  humble,  more  devoted, 
more  zealous.  It  does  not  interfere  with  the  real  recognition  by 
us  of  any  of  their  virtues.  .  .  .  There  may  be,  there  is,  Christian 
fellowship  without  church-fellowship.  As  the  former  is  not  to 
be  measm-ed  by  membership  in  the  same  Christian  denomination, 
neither  is  it  to  be  measured  by  any  such  practice  as  inter-com- 
munion. 

"  Again :  the  question  is  not,  whether  we  shall  '  unchurch '  our 
Pedobaptist  brethren.  ...  It  is  true,  we  regard  the  apostohc 
model  of  a  chui-ch  to  be  a  company  of  believers  in  Chi'ist,  who 
have  been  baptized  on  a  profession  of  their  faith,  and  who  are 
organized  for  the  observance  and  maintenance  of  the  Christian 
rehgion,  their  mutual  growth  in  grace,  and  the  diffusion  of  the 
truth.  To  this  model  we  feel  ourselves  under  obhgations  to 
conform  in  church-building.  But  as  we  would  not  refuse  the  name 
of  a  house  to  a  building  in  which  persons  lived,  even  though  it 
seemed  to  us  improperly  put  together,  and  to  have  a  very  loose 
and  irregular  arrangement  for  a  door ;  so  we  do  not  deny  the  name 
of  a  church  to  any  organization  into  which  true  believers  have  con- 
scientiously entered  for  that  purpose.  We  simply  declare  concern- 
ing Pedobaptist  churches,  that,  in  our  judgment,  they  are  irregularly 
constituted.  And  as  for  the  table  which  is  spread  by  them,  the 
bread  is  there,  the  wine  is  there,  the  prayers  are  offered,  and  the 
elements  duly  distributed  to  many,  devout  persons  who  partake  of 
them  in  faith,  and  find  the  occasion  a  precious  means  of  grace. 
"We  think  we  express  the  sentiment  of  all,  except  extremists,  in 
the  Baptist  ranlis,  when  we  say  that  we  have  no  disposition  to 
deny  that  it  is  the  Lord's  Supper.  But,  since  baptism  scripturaUy 
precedes  communion,  our  view  is,  that  that  the}''  partake  of  it 
prematurel3^"  ^     Holding,   as  we  do,  in  the  words  of  President 

1  We  have  given  above  the  utterances  of  several  representative  Baptists, 
persons  who  hold  "  the  monstrous,  the  unchristian  doctrine  of  close  com- 
munion,^^ and  are  members  of  a  church  which  "absolutely  insists  upon 
uncharitahleness  among  its  members;"  and  we  leave  our  readers  to  decide 
whether  these  writers  are  "so  uncharitable  toward  other  Cliristians"  as 
Baptists  are  sometimes  represented  to  be.  (See  Theodore  :  A  Story  about 
Baptism,  by  a  True  Baptist,  pp.  84,  321,  335.)  We  may  add,  that  this 
work,  which  is  in  substance  but  the  Dale  theory  "  clothed  in  the  robes  of 


376  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

A.  H.  Strong  of  Rochester  Theological  Seminary,  that  "  the 
ordinance  which  symbolizes  regeneration  must  go  before  the  ordi- 
nance which  symbolizes  sanctification,  as  birth  must  go  before 
nourishment,  and  life  before  its  sustenance,"  and  that,  not  only  by 
the  nature  of  things  {nascimur,  pascimur) ,  but  by  Scripture  pre- 
cept and  plain  apostolic  example,  baptism  should  follow  faith  or 
conversion,  and  precede  communion  ;  ^  holding,  also,  that  immersion 
in  water  is  necessary  to  the  act  of  baptism,  and  that  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  a  church  ordinance,  —  we  certainlj"  cannot  justly  be 
charged  with  bigotry  (by  those,  at  least,  who  with  us  regard  "faith 
in  Christ,  baptism,  and  an  orderly  walk,"  as  prerequisites  to  thf) 
communion)  in  not  inviting  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  to  partake 
"with  us  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  And  here  we  are  happ}'^  to*^  bear 
witness  that  manj^  Pedobaptist  divines  do  not  regard  our  "close 

romance,"  was  designed  to  be  an  answer  to  "  Theodosia  Ernest ; "  and  so 
successful  was  "Dr.  Graham"  in  expounding  the  scripturalness  of  sprin- 
kling as  baptism,  that  Theodosia's  daughter  Grace,  and  her  lover  Theodore 
Westervelt,  were  converted  to  pedobaptism,  and  became  members  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  We  give  one  slight  specimen,  found  on  p.  294,  of  the 
argumentation  by  which  "Dr.  Graham"  baptized  —  that  is,  "  controllingly 
influenced" — the  youthful  lovers:  "But  it  seems  to  me,  Mr.  Percy,  that 
your  supposition  [that  the  three  thousand  might  not  all  have  been  baptized 
that  day]  is  an  attempt  to  evade  a  plain  statement  of  Scripture.  We  read, 
*  Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word  were  baptized  ;  and  the  same  day 
there  were  added,'  "  &c.  The  Greek  particle  oun  (Latin,  igitur,  our  then 
or  therefore)  seems,  by  the  Italicizing,  to  decide  as  to  the  time  of  the  bap- 
tizing. We  probably  have  not  had  as  yet  the  whole  (and  true)  history  of 
Theodosia  and  her  descendants. 

1  This  was  the  established  and  undeviating  order  of  the  ordinances  in 
the  earliest  ages  of  the  Church's  history.  Justin  Martyr,  the  first  father 
who  speaks  of  this  subject,  says,  "  This  food  is  called  among  us  Eu- 
cJiaristia,  of  which  no  one  is  allowed  to  partaJie  who  does  not  believe 
that  what  we  teach  is  true,  and  has  not  been  bathed  in  the  bath  for  the 
remission  of  sins  and  unto  regeneration,  and  does  not  live  as  Christ  has  en- 
joined." Jerome  says,  "  Catechumens  cannot  commtmicate  at  the  Lord's 
table,  being  unbaptized."  Augustine,  speaking  of  administering  to  infants 
the  "sacrament"  of  the  Lord's  table,  says,  "To  which  no  one,  unless 
baptized,  rightly  approaches."  And  Theophylact  at  a  later  period  testifies, 
"orideis  abaptistos  metalambanei,'"  that  "  no  unbaptized  person  partakes  of 
the  Lord's  Supper."  So  invariable  has  this  order  ever  been,  that  Dr.  Wall 
could  truly  say,  "Among  all  the  absurdities  that  ever  were  held,  none  ever 
maintained  that,  —  that  any  person  should  partake  of  the  communion  before 
he  was  baptized." 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  377 

communion  "  as  proof  of  bigotry  or  Pharisaic  exclusivism.  Thus 
Eev.  F.  G.  Hibbard  (Methodist),  in  his  work  "On  Baptism," 
says,  "  It  is  but  just  to  remark,  that,  in  one  principle,  the  Baptist 
and  Pedobaptist  churches  agree.  They  both  agree  in  rejecting 
'from  communion  at  the  table  of  the  Lord  and  in  denj'ing  the 
rights  of  church-fellowship  to  all  who  have  not  been  baptized. 
Valid  baptism  they  consider  as  essential  to  constitute  visible 
church-membership.  This  also  we  hold.  .  The  onl}-  question, 
then,  that  here  divides  us,  is.  What  is  essential  to  valid  baptism?  " 
And  the  Rev.  G.  F.  Wright  (Congregationalist) ,  in  "  Bibliotheca 
Sacra"  for  April,  1874,  thus  remarks:  "The  intelligent  con- 
sistent defence  of  close  communion  [on  the  part  of  Baptists] 
does  not  proceed  on  the  supposition  that  immersed  persons  are  the 
only  regenerate  believers ;  but  they  base  their  refusal  to  invite 
unimmersed  persons  to  the  Lord's  table  on  the  same  grounds  of 
order  and  expediency  on  which  other  denominations  refuse  to 
invite  unbaptized  persons  to  commune  with  them,"  In  this  con- 
nection we  may  properly  quote  the  words  of  Rev.  Robert  Hall, 
who,  though  a  Baptist,  was  so  far  open  communion,  that  he  would 
not  require  any  baptismal  or  public  profession  as  a  prerequisite  to 
communion  or  church-membership,  —  a  looseness  of  practice  which 
our  Pedobaptist  friends  who  commend  to  us  the  example  of  Hall 
refuse  to  adopt  for  themselves.  "Let  it  be  admitted,"  he  saj'S, 
"that  baptism  is,  under  all  circumstances,  a  necessary  condition 
of  church-fellowship,  and  it  is  impossible  for  the  Baptists  to  act 
otherwise.  The  recollection  of  this  may  suffice  to  rebut  the  ridi- 
cule, and  silence  the  clamor,  of  those  who  loudly  condemn  the 
Baptists  for  a  proceeding,  which,  were  they  but  to  change  their 
opinion  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  tJieir  own  principles  would 
compel  them  to  adopt.  They  both  concur  in  a  common  principle, 
from  which  the  practice  deemed  so  oflfensive  is  the  necessary 
result.  Considered  as  an  argumentum  ad  Jiominem,  or  an  appeal 
to  avowed  principles  of  our  opponents,  this  reasoning  ma}'  be 
sufficient  to  shield  us  from  that  severity  of  reproach  to  which  we 
are  often  exposed  ;  nor  ought  we  to  be  censured  for  acting  upon 
a  system  which  is  sanctioned  by  our  accusers."  Were  the  Lord's 
Supper  our  supper,  or  "  were  communion  at  the  Lord's  table  a  sign 
of  Chi-istian  fellowship  merel}'',  the  case  would  be  eutirel}'  different, 
and  Baptists  would  then  gladly  invite  aU  who  give  evidence  of 


378  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

faith  to  partake  with  them."  But,  "as  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  a  church  ordinance,  they  [the  Baptists]  hold  that  none  but 
members  of  the  church  obser^dng  it  are  strictly  entitled  to  partake, 
and  that  none  can  be  properly  invited  to  join  with  them  in  the 
service  who  could  not  be  welcomed  without  change  of  views  to 
fuU  membership"  (Tract  of  Dr.  Hovey  on  "  Close  Communion," 
pp.  65,  67).  As  the  churches  of  Christ  from  apostohc  times  have 
generally  held,  and  as  our  evangelical  Pedobaptist  brethren  do 
now  hold,  that  only  baptized  persons  whose  "  deportment  becometh 
the  gospel  of  Christ "  are  scriptural^  qualified  to  partake  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  as  our  friends,  no  less  than  ourselves,  thus 
practise  a  "restricted"  communion,  even  refusing  to  commune 
with  large  multitudes  of  their  own  baptized  members,  and  hence  are 
far  more  "  close  "  and  "  exclusive  "  than  we  are,  so  it  is  with  no 
good  reason  that  we  are  termed  "  exclusivists,"  or  our  communion 
is  branded  as  "  close."  Indeed,  the  controversy  between  us  does 
not  relate  at  all  to  the  terms  of  admission  to  the  Lord's  Supper ; 
but  it  "  relates,"  as  Dr.  Hovey  sa^^s  in  the  afore-mentioned  tract, 
"  to  the  subjects  and  the  rite  of  haptism.  A  more  careful  examina- 
tion of  this  question  may  perhaps  in  time,  by  the  blessing  of  God, 
bring  together  those  who  now  differ  ;  and  if  it  does,  whether  by  a 
change  of  behef  on  the  part  of  Baptists,  or  by  a  change  on  the 
part  of  Pedobaptists,  the  former  will  be  reheved  of  a  duty  the 
performance  of  which  occasions  them  far  more  sorrow  than  ^it  does 
others,  — the  duty  of  restricting  their  invitation  to  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per to  members  of  Baptist  churches.  Such  a  '  consummation  is 
devoutly  to  be  wished.'  May  God  hasten  it  by  reveahng  His  truth 
to  aU  who  love  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ !  "  (See  also  Dr.  Hovey 's 
article  on  "Close  Commimion"  in  "Bibliotheca  Sacra,"  Janu- 
ary, 1862  ;  and  on  "  The  Symbohsm  of  Baptism  and  of  the  Com- 
munion," and  on  "The  Eelation  of  the  One  Rite  to  the  Other,"  see 
the  "  Madison- Avenue  Lectures.")  "We  have  spoken  to  our  Pedo- 
baptist brethren  of  "  a  more  excellent  way;"  but,  in  our  view, 
the  MOST  excellent  way  for  our  Mends  would  be  to  think  less  about 
the  "one  table,"  and  more  of  the  "one  baptism,"  and  to  ac- 
knowledge this  "one  baptism"  (of  behevers)  in  their  practice. 
Paul  does  not  say,  "  One  Lord,  one  faith,  and  —  one  communion- 
table," but  "  One  Lord,  one  faith,  and  one  baptism,."  K  we  can 
come  to  agree  rightly  on  these  points,  this  of  itself  wOl  secure  the  one 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  379 

table,  the  union  of  Christians,  the  fellowship  of  the  churches,  and 
aU  will  thereby  be  enabled  "  to  keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the 
bond  of  peace."  Wherever  the  blame  may  lie,  none  can  more 
deepty  regret  than  Baptists  the  division  which  separates  us  from  our 
Christian  brethren.  With  Dr.  Hovey,  we  are  free  to  confess  that 
the  so-called  ' '  close  communion  ' '  which  is  practised  by  most 
Baptist  Christians  in  this  country  is  more  painful  to  us  than  it  can 
be  to  our  Pedobaptist  friends  ;  and  if  any  one  can  show  us  a  way 
whereby  we  can  consistently  and  properly,  without  indorsing  what 
we  deem  to  be  error,  without  reproaching  our  own  baptism  and  the 
baptism  which  we  deem  to  be  the  Lord's,  unite  in  the  communion 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  with  those  whom  we  niust  deem  unbaptized 
Christians,  and  with  whom  we  can  have  no  reciprocal  church-fel- 
low sMp,  he  shall  have,  at  least,  my  hearty  thanks.  In  the  mean- 
while, if  our  restricted  communion  does  have  in  us  a  look  of 
Pharisaism,  or  superior  self-righteousness,  this  very  look,  we  trust, 
is  enough  to  keep  us  duly  humble.  We  certainly  hope  and  trust, 
that,  in  ourself  at  least,  we  have  never  experienced  the  "  ill  eifects 
of  Baptist  doctrine"  as  enumerated  by  Hutchings  ;  namely,  "self- 
complacency,"  "self-conceit,"  "  spmtual  pride,"  "  censorious- 
ness,"  "  uncharitableness,"  &c. :  and  we  opine  that  the  bodj' of 
Baptist  behevers  is  quite  as  free  from  denominational  bigotry  and 
real  exclusiveness  as  some  other  religious  bodies  we  could  mention. 
But,  after  all,  the  great  trouble,  as  we  have  already  intimated,  lies 
farther  back  than  in  the  question  of  communion.  Mere  "open 
communion,"  as  matters  now  stand,  wiU  not  heal  aU  the  difficulty, 
or  -secure  the  much-desired  Christian  charity  and  union.  Carson 
was  an  open-communionist,  and  3'et  he  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  over-ardently  loved  by  Pedobaptist  writers.  When  the  Hon. 
and  Rev.  Baptist  W.  Noel  joined  the  body  of  Baptist  behevers, 
many  a  hard  and  bitter  word  was  spoken  against  him  and  his 
course,  although  he  was  an  advocate  of  "  free  communion."  In- 
deed, open  communion  without  the  fuUest  reciprocal  church-fe\k>w- 
ship  is,  in  reality,  but  a  mocker}^  and  a  farce.  Hence  we  do  not 
think  that  much  is  gained  hy  those  Baptists,  who,  like  Spm-geon, 
practise  a  free  communion,  and  yet  keep  a  "  close  "  church.  For 
the  retort  will  still  be,  "  How  do  3'ou  expect  we  can  be  gathered  into 
one  fold  and  church  above,  when  you  debar  us  from  j'our  church  on 
earth?  "     Certain  it  is  that  mere  unrestricted  communion  wUl  not 


380  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

prevent  the  "profane  scoffs"  of  which  Dr.  Wall  was  ashamed,  and 
the  Church  of  God  will  still  be  "  islanded  "  off  into  impassable  sects. 
With  the  present  sharp  diversity  of  views,  and  frequent  bitterness 
of  controversy,  there  may  possibty  be  an  outward  "  communion," 
but  no  union  in  heart,  and  no  general  ecclesiastical  fellowship  and 
unit}".  The  Saviour's  seamless  garment  will  stiU  have  an  unseemly 
rent.  When  will  His  prayer,  that  all  believers  in  Him  may  be 
"  one,"  be  answered?  Is  there  in  prospect  a  possibility  that  there 
shall  be  a  general  church-fellowship  among  Protestant  evangelical 
believers  ?  Dr.  S chaff  closes  his  incomparable  ' '  History  of  Ancient 
Christianity ' '  with  these  words  :  ' '  We  believe  in,  and  hope  for, 
one  holy  Catholic  Apostolic  Church,  one  communion  of  saints,  one 
fold,  and  one  Shepherd."  This  belief  and  hope  might  perhaps  be 
partially  realized,  could  our  Pedobaptist  ministers  and  churches 
consistently  and  heartily  adopt  the  views  and  feelings  of  Dr.  E.  de 
Pressense  on  the  subject  of  immersion  and  of  infant-baptism ;  since 
this,  most  certainly,  would  create  an  era  of  good  feeling,  so  far,  at 
least,  as  Baptists  are  concerned,  even  if  it  did  not  lead  to  a  general 
or  partial  intercommunion.  For  such  ministers  and  such  churches 
would  be  essentially  baptistic  in  spirit;  and,  though  they  practised 
but  the  "  compends  "  or  abridgments  of  a  proper  baptism,  they 
would  not  hesitate,  as  Cj'prian  did  not,  to  acknowledge  them  as 
such ;  and  though,  unlike  Cj'prian,  they  should  practise  them 
when  necessity  did  not  compel,  they  would  jet  endeavor  to  do  so 
with  the  fuller  meaning  of  the  ^'■unabridged"  rite  kept  in  view. 
But  how  is  it  possible  that  any  clear-headed  Evangehcal  Protestant 
Clu^istian  can  for  a  moment  entertain  the  idea  that  any  "  church  " 
has  the  right  essentially  to  "  modify  a  form  and  rite  "  of  Christ's 
appointing  ' '  according  to  times  and  places  ' '  ? 

Baptism  as  a  sj'mbolical  rite  "is,"  in  the  words  of  Dr.  Hovey, 
"first  of  all  pictorial  language,  a  vi^id  and  divinely  chosen  em- 
blem, working  with  the  power  of  truth  on  the  soul,  and  they  [to 
whom  the  value  of  that  rite  depends  upon  what  it  expresses] 
would  as  soon  think  of  changing  the  original  text  of  Scripture  as 
of  changing  this  significant  rite."  What  individual  member,  or 
what  churches  of  any  of  our  Protestant  denominations,  would  dare 
so  far  to  "  modif}^  "  the  form  and  rite  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  that, 
in  order  "to  comprehend  the  value  of  this  august  symbol,"  we 
should  be  obliged  to  go  back  to  the  times  of  the  patrists  and  the 


STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM.  381 

apostles,  and  "consider  it  under  its  iDrimitive  form  "  ?  Yet  the 
example  of  a  Calvin,  a  Pressense,  and  a  Stanley,  shows  that  such 
a  thing  lies  within  the  bounds  of  possibility.^ 

The  words  of  Pressense,  which  we  quote  from  Dr.  Tlovej's 
article  in  "The  Baptist  Quarterly"  for  1875,  p.  146,  and  with 
which  we  shall  close  our  present  discussion,  are  as  follows  :  "To 
comprehend  the  value  of  this  august  sj'mbol  (baptism) ,  we  must 
consider  it  under  its  primitive  form.  I  declare  at  the  outset,  that 
I  admit  the  right  of  the  church  to  modify  a  form  and  rite  accord- 
ing to  times  and  places.  The  new  covenant  is  not  bound,  as  was 
the  old,  to  a  Levitical  code  which  rules  absolutely  all  the  details 
of  worship,  all  religious  usages.  The  details  are  left  to  Christian 
liberty  ;  and  forms  may  be  varied,  provided  the  spirit  of  the  gospel 
be  not  changed.  Let  it,  then,  be  well  understood  that  we  raise  no 
objection  to  the  actual  form  of  baptism  in  our  churches.  We 
believe  that  it  would  be  an  act  of  Judaism  to  protest  against  it, 
giving  thereby  an  exaggerated  importance  to  a  question  of  this 
nature.  The  West  can  reproduce  with  difficult}^  the  ceremonies 
of  the  East,  and  we  understand  very  well  that  sprinkling  has  been 
substituted   for  immersion.^    Nevertheless,   to   seize  with    entire 

1  It  would  seem  that  some  Pedobaptists  in  this  country  are  following  in 
the  steps  of  Calvin  and  Pressense.  Professor  L.  L.  Paine,  D.D.,  of  the 
Bangor  Theological  Seminary,  speaks  thus  decisively  of  immersion  as  the 
physical  act  of  primitive  baptism.  He  says,  "  The  testimony  is  ample  and 
decisive.  No  matter  of  church  history  is  clearer.  The  evidence  is  all  one 
way,  and  all  church  historians  of  any  repute  agree  in  accepting  it.  We  can- 
not claim  even  originality  in  teaching  it  in  a  Congregational  seminary, 
and  we  really  feel  guilty  of  a  kind  of  anachronism  in  writing  an  article  to 
insist  upon  it.  It  is  a  point  on  which  ancient,  medi93val,  and  modern 
historians  alike.  Catholic  and  Protestant,  Lutheran  and  Calvinist,  have  no 
controversy.  And  the  simple  reason  for  this  unanimity  is,  that  the  state- 
ments of  the  early  fathers  are  so  clear,  and  the  light  shed  upon  these  state- 
ments from  the  early  customs  of  the  church  is  so  conclusive,  that  no  historian 
who  cares  for  his  reputation  would  dare  to  deny  it,  and  no  historian  who  is 
worthy  of  the  name  would  wish  to  "  (see  Burrage's  Act  of  Baptism,  p.  37). 
Yet  Professor  Paine,  in  justification  of  the  use  of  compends,  alleges  that  the 
essence  of  the  sign  consists  in  the  fact  that  water  is  used  without  regard  to 
quantity ;  that  the  essence  of  baptism  does  not  consist  in  external  act,  but  iu 
a  "spiritual  cleansing;"  and  that  the  ^'form  of  the  rite  is  suhject  to  the 
laws  of  Christian  Uhert]/." 

^  Dr.  Wall  remarks,  that  it  was  in  France,  not  a  cold  country,  where  the 
compends  of  baptism,  pouring  and  sprinlding,  first  came  into  general  use ; 


382  STUDIES  ON  BAPTISM. 

clearness  the  primary  idea  of  the  sacrament  of  regeneration,  we 
must  in  some  way  make  a  primitive  baptism  assist  us.  The  neo- 
phyte was  first  plunged  in  the  water ;  and  then,  when  he  had 
emerged,  he  received  the  imposition  of  hands.  These  two  acts  of 
baptism  represented  the  two  grand  sides  of  the  Christian  life,  — re- 
pentance and  faith,  death  and  the  new  life.  The  neophj-te  is  buried 
under  the  waters  in  sign  of  his  voluntary  death  to  self,  in  which 
every  serious  conversion  begins :  he  becomes  one  who  is  planted  in 
the  crucifixion  of  his  Saviour.  Then  he  emerges  to  light  in  sign 
of  his  inward  renewal :  he  becomes  one  who  is  planted  in  the  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  Christ.  Thus  is  figured  in  a  manner  the  most 
expressive  and  solemn  all  this  grand  drama  of  regeneration." 

In  reference  to  infant-baptism  he  thus  remarks  :  ' '  The  practice 
of  baptizing  the  newly  born  was  early  introduced  into  the  church  ; 
though  it  does  not  reach  back,  in  our  belief,  to  the  apostolic  age. 
.  .  .  We  thinli  it  would  be  better,  in  a  world  where  illusions  are 
so  eas}^,  not  to.  place  the  sign  before  the  thing  signified,  for  fear 
that  the  symbol  might  be  considered  as  sufficient,  and  faith  be 
dispensed  with,  under  the  pretext  that  one  has  received  the  august 
mark  of  it.  We  hope  the  church  will  reform  its  practice  on  this 
point,  and  thus  approach  the  apostohc  type.  ...  I  hope  that  in 
the  future  this  need"  (which  pious  parents  feel  of  consecrating 
their  children  to  God),  "so  natural  and  so  Christian,  may  be 
satisfied  in  a  manner  altogether  legitimate,  by  the  introduction  of 
a  simple  and  affecting  ceremon}'  which  will  content  the  heart, 
without  subjecting  to  any  alteration  a  great  ordinance  of  primitive 
Christianity,  and  without  tempting  the  unbelieving  multitude  to  a 
deadly  formahsm." 

To  which  expressed  deskes  we  can  only  say,  ' '  Amen  and 
Amen." 


and  that  it  was  in  the  same  country  that  anti-pedobaptism  first  made  its 
appearance.  He  supjjoses  there  was  a  causal  connection  between  the  two 
events,  and  he  presents  this  as  one  reason  why  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of 
England  should  practise  the  "primitive  baptism."  We  believe  that  "  sprin- 
kling," as  one  mode  of  baptism,  was  first  authorized  at  a  council  in  Ravenna, 
A.D.  1311,  by  him  whose  prerogative  it  is  "  to  change  times  and  laws."  Its 
language  was,  "Ipsam  formam  .  .  .  recensemus:  Petre!  Ego  baptize  te 
.  .  .  sub  trina  aspersione  vel  immersione."    , 


APPENDIX. 


APPENDIX. 


NOTE  I.,  P.   42. 

It  is  well  known  that  neither  the  English  nor  the  American  Episcopal 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  recognizes  sprinkling  as  baptism,  but  that 
dipping  (especially  in  the  English  rubric)  is  enjoined  as  the  general 
rule,  and  pouring  only  in  extraordinary  cases.  So  "  the  prayer  immedi- 
ately before  the  immersion,  or  the  pouring  of  water  on  the  infant,"  thus 
reads :  "  Sanctify  this  water,  .  .  .  and  grant  that  this  child  now  to  be 
baptized  therein,"  &c.  And  also  the  Catechism :  "  What  is  the  outwardi 
visible  sign  or  form  of  baptism?  Ans. — Water,  wlierein  the  person  is 
baptized,"  &c.  The  opening  prayer,  too,  of  the  baptismal  service  makes 
mention  of  "the  baptism  of  thy  well-beloved  Son  Jesus  Christ  in  the 
River  Jordan."  The  first  prayer  in  the  Baptismal  Office  of  1549,  taken 
almost  verbatim  from  the  Cologne  liturgy  as  prepared  in  1543  by  Martin 
Bucer  for  Archbishop  Hermann,  from  Luther's  "  Tauf biichlein  "  of  1524, 
or  his  Latin  version  of  1526,  is  still  more  explicit :  "  Almighty  God, 
which  in  old  time  didst  destroy  the  wicked  world  with  the  flood  accord- 
ing to  thy  terrible  {Jwrribili)  judgment,  and  didst  preserve  only  the 
family  of  godly  Noah,  eight  souls,  of  thy  unspeakable  mercy ;  and  which, 
also  didst  drown  in  the  Red  Sea  obstinate  Pharaoh,  the  king  of  the  Egyp- 
tians, with  all  his  army  and  warlike  power,  and  causedst  thy  people 
Israel  to  pass  over  with  dry  feet ;  and  wouldst  shadow  in  them  holy  bap- 
tism, the  laver  of  regeneration ;  furthermore,  which  didst  consecrate  Jor- 
dan with  the  baptism  of  thy  Son  Christ  Jesus,  and  other  waters  to  holy 
dipping  (arf  sanctam  demersionem),  and  washing  of  sins :  We  pray  thee, 
for  thy  exceeding  mercy,  look  favorably  iipon  this  infant;  give  him 
true  faith  and  thy  Holy  Spirit,  that  whatsoever  filth  he  hath  taken  from 
Adam  it  may  be  drowned  and  be  put  away  by  this  holy  flood  (per  hoc 
sacrosanctum  diluvium  in  eo  •  submergatur,  &c.).  See  "A.  History  of  tlie 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,"  by  Francis  Procter,  M.A.,  Vicar:  of  Witton, 
p.  364,  and  Goode  "On  Baptism,"  p.  544.     The  prayer  of  consecration 

886 


386  APPENDIX. 

in  1549  thus  reads :  "  O  most  merciful  God  our  Saviour  Jesa  Christ, 
.  .  .  upon  whom,  being  baptized  in  the  River  Jordan,  the  Holy  Ghost 
came  down  in  likeness  of  a  dove,  .  .  .  sanctify  this  fountain  of  baptism, 
.  .  .  that,  by  the  power  of  thy  word,  all  those  that  shall  be  baptized 
therein  may  be  spiritually  regenerated,  &c.  O  merciful  God,  grant  that 
the  old  Adam  in  them  that  shall  be  baptized  in  this  fountain  may  be  so 
buried,  that  the  new  man  may  be  raised  up  again.  Almighty,  ever-living 
God,  .  .  .  grant  that  all  thy  servants  which  shall  be  baptized  in  this 
water,"  &c.  This  form  of  consecration  was,  at  the  instance  of  Martin 
Bucer,  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity  at  Cambridge,  omitted  in  the  revision 
of  1552  (the  second  under  Edward  VI.),  together  with  the  mention  of  the 
destruction  of  the  old  world,  and  of  the  "  obstinate  "  Pharaoh  by  water. 
The  "  Venerable  Bede,"  born  about  A.D.  672,  author  of  the  early  Eccle- 
siastical History  of  England,  thus  speaks  of  the  baptismal  mersion  of  his 
day :  "  The  person  to  be  baptized  is  seen  to  descend  into  the  font ;  he  is 
seen  when  he  is  dipped  in  the  waters ;  he  is  seen  to  ascend  from  the 
waters  (pidetur  aquts  intingl,  videtur  de  aquis  ascendere)  :  but  what  effect 
the  washing  of  regeneration  works  in  him  can  be  least  seen.  Thus  the 
piety  of  the  faithful  alone  knows  that  the  candidate  descends  into  the 
font  a  sinner,  but  ascends  purified  from  guilt;  he  descends  a  son  of 
death,  but  ascends  a  son  of  the  resurrection ;  he  descends  a  son  of  apos- 
tasy, he  ascends  a  son  of  reconciliation  ;  he  descends  a  son  of  wrath,  he 
ascends  a  son  of  mercy ;  he  descends  a  son  of  the  Devil,  he  ascends  a 
son  of  God "  (see  Burrage  on  "  The  Act  of  Baptism,"  p.  230 ;  also 
Cathcart's  "Baptism  of  the  Ages,"  p.  34).  The  following  is  Bede's 
account  of  the  baptism  of  King  Edwin  by  Paulinus  :  "  King  Edwin,  with 
all  the  nobility  of  the  nation,  and  a  large  number  of  the  people,  received 
the  faith  and  the  washing  of  the  holy  regeneration  in  the  eleventh  year 
of  his  reign,  which  is  the  year  of  the  incarnation  of  our  Lord  six  hundred 
and  twenty-seven.  He  was  baptized  at  York  on  the  holy  day  of  Easter, 
being  the  12th  of  April,  in  the  Church  of  St.  Peter  the  apostle,  which  he 
himself  had  built  of  timber  whilst  he  was  being  catechised  and  instructed 
in  order  to  receive  baptism.  ...  So  great  was  then  the  fervor  of  the 
faith,  as  is  reported,  and  the  desire  of  the  washing  of  salvation,  among 
the  Northumbrians,  that  Paulinus  at  a  certain  time,  coming  with  the 
king  and  queen  to  the  royal  villa  called  Adgefrin,  staid  there  with 
them  thirty-six  days,  fully  occupied  in  catechising  and  baptizing ;  during 
which  days,  from  morning  till  night,  he  did  nothing  else  but  instruct 
the  people,  resorting  from  all  villages  and  places,  in  Christ's  saving 
word ;  and,  when  instructed,  he  washed  them  with  the  water  of  abso- 
lution in  the  River  Glen.  .  .  .  These  things  happened  in  the  province 
of  the  Bemicians ;  but  in  that  of  Deiri  also,  where  he  was  wont  often 
to  be  with  the  king,  he  baptized  in  the  River  Swale,  which  runs  by  the 


APPENDIX.  387 

Tillage  of  Cataract;  for,  as  yet,  oratories  or  baptisteries  could  not  be 
made  there  in  the  early  infancy  of  the  church"  (see  "  Act  of  Baptism," 
p.  79,  and  "Baptism  of  the  Ages,"  p.  30).  A  council  held  at  Celichyth, 
England,  in  816,  enjoins  upon  the  priests,  that,  "when  they  administer 
holy  baptism,  they  must  not  pour  the  sacred  water  upon  the  heads  of 
the  infants,  but  these  must  always  be  immersed  in  the  font,  as  the  Son 
gave  His  own  example  to  every  believer  when  He  was  thrice  immersed 
in  the  waters  of  Jordan."  The  Council  of  Worcester,  A.D.  1240,  orders 
"  trina  semper  fiat  emersio  baptizandi,"  —  that  the  trine  immersion  should 
always  be  used.  A  council  in  Exeter,  England,  1287,  enjoined  immer- 
sion, even  in  the  case  of  sick  and  dying  infants.  Erasmus,  in  the  early 
part  of  the  sixteenth  century,  says,  "  Perfunduntur  apud  nos,  merguntur 
apud  Anglos :  "  i.e.,  with  the  Dutch,  pouring  is  customary ;  but  in  Eng- 
gland  they  are  dipped.  Trine  immersion  was  also  enjoined  in  the 
Sarum  Manual  of  1530,  and  was  customary  in  the  days  of  Henry  VHI.  ; 
his  own  children,  Mary,  Edward,  Elizabeth,  having  been  "  thryce  dypped  " 
in  the  font.  So  the  first  Liturgy  of  Edward  VI.,  1549,  directs  that 
"  The  Prieste  shall  take  the  childe  in  his  handes,  and  aske  his  name,  and, 
namyng  the  childe,  shall  dyppe  it  in  the  water  thryce,  first  dipping  the 
right  side,  seconde  the  left  side,  the  third  time  dipping  the  face  towarde 
the  fonte  so  it  bee  discretely  and  warely  done."  Bat,  "if  the  childe 
be  weak,  it  shall  sufiice  to  pour  water  upon  it." 

In  the  Second  Book  of  Edward  VI.,  in  the  First  Book  of  Elizabeth 
(1559),  and  in  King  James'  "  Hampton-Court  Book  "  (1604),  the  "  tluyce  " 
is  omitted,  and  the  order  runs  thus  :  "  Then  the  priest  shall  take  the 
child  in  his  hands,  .  .  .  and,  naming  the  child,  shall  dip  it  in  the  water, 
so  it  be  discreetly  and  warily  done.  .  .  .  And  if  the  child  be  weak,'' 
&c.  The  liturgy,  as  finally  revised  and  settled  in  the  Savoy  Convo- 
cation under  Charles  II.  (1661),  and  sanctioned  by  Parliament  (1662), 
thus  reads  :  "  Then  the  priest  shall  take  the  child  into  his  hands,  and 
shall  say  to  the  godfathers  and  godmothers,  Xame  this  child  ;  and  then, 
naming  it  after  them  (if  they  shall  certify  him  that  the  child  may  well 
endure  it),  he  shall  dip  it  in  the  water  discreetly  and  warily.  .  .  .  But, 
if  they  certify  that  the  child  is  weak,  it  shall  suffice  to  pour  water  upon 
it."  In  obedience  to  this  rubric,  John  Wesley,  in  Georgia.  A.D.  1736, 
refused  to  baptize  a  healthy  child  because  its  parents  would  not  con- 
sent to  a  dipping.  The  record  of  his  journal  thus  reads:  ^'Wedne^daij, 
May  5.  —  I  was  asked  to  baptize  a  child  of  Mr.  Parker,  second  bailiff  of 
Savannah.  But  Mrs.  Parker  told  me,  'Neither  Mr.  Parker  nor  I  will 
consent  to  its  being  dipped.'  I  answered,  '  If  you  certify  that  your  child 
is  weak,  it  will  suffice,  the  rubric  says,  to  pour  water  upon  it.'  She 
replied,  'Nay,  the  child  is  not  weak;  but  I  am  resolved  it  shall  not  be 
dipped.'     This  argument  I  could  not  confute.     So  I  went  home,  and 


388  APPENDIX. 

the  child  was  baptized  by  another  person  "  ("Wesley's  "Works,"  vol.  i. 
p.  134).  The  first  Prayer-Book  (1549.)  prescribes,  for  the  private  baptism 
of  infants,  this  form  :  "  First,  let  them  that  be  present  call  upon  God  for 
His  grace,  and  say  the  Lord's  Prayer,  if  the  time  will  suffer  [this  is  in 
case  of  danger  of  the  child's  death].  And  then  -one  of  them  [that  is,  of 
the'midwives  or  assistants  present]  shall  name  the  child,  and  dip  him 
in  the  water,  or  pour  water  upon  him,"  &c.  And  this  form  stood  down 
to  the  time  of  the  Hampton-court  Conference  (1604)  under  King  James, 
whose  "Highnesse  "  expressed  a  strong  dislike  against  the  "baptizing 
by  women  and  laikes."  In  1689  a  commission  appointed  by  William  IH., 
consisting  of  such  names  as  Stillingfleet,  Patrick,  Tillotson,  Beveridge, 
&c.,  attempted  to  "prepare  such  alterations  of  the  liturgy  and  canons 
...  as  might  most  conduce  to  the  good  order  and  edification  and  unity 
of  the  Church  of  England,  and  to  the  reconciling,  as  much  as  possible, 
all  differences;  "  in  other  words,  to  draw  in  as  many  dissenters  as  pos- 
sible. Among  the  alterations  proposed  by  the  commissioners,  amount- 
ing to  five  himdred  and  ninety-eight  articles  (had  these  been  adopted, 
there  probably  would  have  been  no  "  Ref orined  "  Episcopal  Church  in 
our  day),  was  one  which  recommended  sprinkling,  along  with  dipping 
and'  pouring,  as  one  form  of  baptism.  But  the  labors  of  these  com- 
missioners finally  "miscarried,"  and  amounted  to  nothing.  For  further 
testimony  relating  to  the  mode  of  baptism  in  the  early  Anglican  Church 
see  Appendix  I,  Note  B,  p.  6,  seq.,  ot  Dr.  S.  S.  Cutting's  "Historical 
Vindications  ;  "  the  "  Baptism  of  the  Ages,"  by  Dr.  Cathcart ;  the  "  Act 
of  Baptism,"  by  Rev.  H.  S.-  Burrage ;  also  Crosby's  "  History  of  the 
English  Baptists,"  and  Robinson's  "History  of  Baptism." 

Francis  Simpson,  in  his  work  on  English  "  Baptismal  Fonts,"  says, 
"  From  the  time  of  the  Reformation  to  the  days  of  Puritanic  fury  in  the 
reign  of  Charles  I.,  there  was  a  strong  propensity  to  remove  or  neglect 
the  font,  and  use  a  basin  instead.  This  was  checked  so  long  as  it  was 
possible."  According  to  D?.  Wall,  pouring  (in  case  of  health)  was 
introduced  into  England  in  the  time  of  Queen  Elizabeth  by  those 
"  Presbyterianly  inclined,"  and  mainly  through  the  influence  of  the 
Geneva  Church  and  of  Calvin,  who,  as  Wall  says,  "was  the  first  in 
the  world  that  drew  up  a  form  of  liturgy  that  prescribed  pouring  water 
on  the  infant  absolutely,  without  saying  any  thing  of  dipping."  "For 
two  reigns,"  says  this  same  author,  "pouring  water  on  the  face  of  the 
infant  was  most  in  fashion."  Subsequently,  "these  men  [the  Presby- 
terians], out  of  opposition  to  the  Chui'ch  of  England,  I  think,  brought 
the  external  part  of  this  sacrament  to  a  less  significant  symbol  than 
Calvin  himself  had  done  (for  he  directs  pouring  water  on  the  face), 
and  in  most  places  changed  pouring  to  sprinkling.  This  scandalized 
many  people ;  and  indeed  it  was  and  is  really  scandalous  "  ("  Defence  of 


APPENDIX.  389 

the  History  of  Infant-Baptism,"  pp.  127-130).  Dr.  Wall,  it  will  be  ob- 
served, was  not  cordially  "  inclined  "  towards  the  Presbyterians,  or  their 
famous  Westminster  Assembly,  where,  under  the  leadership  of  Dr.  John 
Lightfoot,  "they  reformed  the  font  into  a  basin"  ("about  the  bigness 
of  a  syllabub  pot ")  for  sprinkling,  whereby,  as  it  seemed  to  the  learned 
Selden,  "the  parson  baptized  his  own  fingers  rather  than  the  child." 
But  the  good  doctor  might  have  told  us  that  not  all  the  Westminster 
divines  were  in  favor  of  legalizing  sprinkling  at  the  expense  6f  dipping, 
as  there  were  twenty-four  votes  for  retaining  dipping  along  with  pour- 
ing and  sprinkling,  and  only  twenty-five  (a  majority  of  one)  against  it. 
"  So  many,"  ■writes  Dr.  Lightfoot,  "  were  unwilling  to  have  dipping  ex- 
cluded, that  the  votes  came  to  an  equality,  within  one.  .  .  .  And  there 
grew  a  great  heat  upon  it,"  ^  &c. 

The  American  rubric  declares  less  emphatically  for  dipping  than  the 
English ;  yet  it  places  immersion  before  the  pouring  of  water.  The  spe- 
cific direction  for  baptizing  the  child  is  this  :  "And  then,  naming  it  after 
them,  he  shall  dip  it  in  the  water  discreetly,  or  shall  pour  water  upon  it." 
Yet  the  two  bishops  (Seabury  and  White)  who  had  most  to  do  with  the 
Prayer-Book  revision  of  1789  both  conceded  that  complete  immersion  was 
the  apostolic  practice;  the  former  asserting  "that  the  original  mode  of 
Christian  baptism  was  ...  by  washing  or  immersing  the  whole  body  in 
water,"  and  that  "this,  too,  seems  most  congruous  to  the  general  expres- 
sions of  Holy  Scripture ;  "  while  the  latter  says,  "  I  dare  not  deny  or  con- 
ceal, that  in  the  gospel  age,  and  for  some  ages  afterwards,  immersion  was 
the  usual  mode  ;  "  and  also  acknowledges  "that  the  present  general  prac- 
tice is  a  deviation  from  what  it  was  originally,  which  it  is  desirable  to 
restore,"  &c. 


NOTE  H.,   P.  145. 

The  true  site  of  Muon  is  a  matter  of  much  uncertainty.'  Eusebius 
and  Jerome  locate  it  in  the  north-easterly  part  of   Samaria,  between 

1  Dr.  Wall,  after  speaking  of  their  "  reforming  the  font  into  a  basin,"  says, 
"  This  learned  assembly  could  not  remember  that  fonts  to  baptize  in  had  been 
always  used  by  the  primitive  Christians  long  before  the  beginning  of  Po^iery, 
and  ever  since  churches  were  built;  but  that  sprinkling,  for  the  common  use 
of  baptism,  was  really  introduced  (in  France  first,  and  then  in  other  Popish 
countries)  in  times  of  Popery:  and  that,  accordingly,  all  those  countries  in 
which  the  usurpetl  j^ower  of  the  Pope  is,  or  has  formerly  been,  owned,  have 
left  off  dipping  of  children  in  the  font;  but  that  all  other  countries  in  the 
world  (which  had  never  regarded  his  authority)  do  still  use  it;  and  that  basins, 
except  in  case  of  necessity,  were  never  used  by  Papists,  or  any  other  Christians 
whatsoever,  till  by  themselves."  — History  of  Infant-Baptism,  part  ii.,  p.  303, 
edition  of  1705. 


390  APPENDIX. 

seven  and  eight  miles  south  of  Scythopolis  or  Bethshean,  "  near  to  Salim 
and  the  Jordan."  The  first  three  evangelists  state  or  imply  that  John 
baptized  in  the  Jordan,  without  mentioning  any  other  place  or  water: 
hence,  when  the  fourth  Gospel  speaks,  apparently,  of  his  baptizing  in 
Bethabara,  or,  according  to  the  best  MSS.,  Bethany,  beyond  or  across 
the  Jordan  (thus  distinguishing  it  from  the  Bethany  near  Jerusalem?), 
it  is  rightly  supposed  that  this  Bethany  was  situated  on  the  east  bank  of 
the  Jordan,  and  that  thus  John  baptized  in  this  river.  ^  In  like  manner, 
Winer,  in  his  "  Realwoerterbuch,"  gives  it  as  his  opinion,  that  if  ^non, 
in  accordance  with  the  above  tradition,  lay  near  the  Jordan,  then  John 
administered  the  rite  in  this  river,  as  was  his  custom,  and  not  in  any  of 
^non's  fountains.  W.  N.  Cote,  in  his  "Baptism  and  Baptisteries," 
p.  100,  afhrms,  without  any  misgiving,  that  "John  the  Baptist  immersed  in 
the  River  Jordan  at  ^non,  where  there  was  much  water."  We  observe 
also  that  Dr.  G.  W.  Samson,  in  his  "  Sufficiency  of  Water  for  Baptizing 
at  Jerusalem,  and  elsewhere  in  Palestine,"  adopts  the  same  view.  He 
speaks  of  it  as  an  established  fact,  that  "it  was  situated  on  the  Jordan.''' 
But  the  gospel  narratives  nowhere  indicate  any  connection  between  JEnon 
and  the  Jordan,  as  they  do  in  regard  to  Bethany.  The  very  name 
"  Ainon  "  —  meaning,  probably,  not  Tauben-quell,  or  Dove-spring,  as 
Meyer  has  it,  nor  "  Fountain  of  On,"  as  C.  Taylor  supposes,  but  simply 
"fountains"  —  bears  witness,  we  think,  against  its  location  on  the  Jordan. 
These  fountains,  being  probably  several  in  number,  and  forming,  we 

1  Bethany,  or  Bethabara,  "  where  John  was  baptizing,"  has  been  com- 
monly located  (as  by  Kiepert)  easterly  from  Jerusalem,  near  to  Jericho  and 
the  Dead  Sea :  but  Stanley  puts  it  near  Succoth,  about  half  way  from  Jericho 
to  the  Sea  of  Galilee;  while  Lieut.  Conder  places  it  not  far  indeed  from  the 
^non  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  near  to  Beisan,  the  ancient  Bethshean,  in 
Korthern  Samaria,  about  tv.'enty-two  miles  from  Kefr  Kenna,  or  Cana,  to 
which  place  our  Saviour  seems  to  have  come  from  the  Jordan  Bethany,  as 
some  suppose,  in  one  day  (see  John  i.  4-3,  ii.  1).  Professor  Hackett,  we  may 
remark,  supposes  that  Jesus  was  baptized  in  the  Lower  Jordan,  bordering  on 
the  "  wilderness  of  Judsea,"  and  not  in  Bethany,  on  the  east  side  of  the 
Jordan,  since  the  Judean  wilderness  did  not,  even  in  part,  lie  on  the  east  of 
that  river;  and  consequently,  that  when  Jesus,  after  the  forty-days'  tempta- 
tion, rejoined  the  Baptist  (at  Bethany),  "it  was  at  a  diiferent  place  from  the 
one  where  He  Himself  had  been  baptized."  Lieut.  Conder  says  that  "  Ba- 
thania,  meaning  '  soft  soil,'  was  the  well-known  form  used,  in  the  time  of 
Christ,  of  Bashan ;  which  district  was  in  Persea,  or  the  country  beyond  Jor- 
dan." He  also  supposes  that  "perhaps  the  original  text  contained  both 
names,  '  Bethabara  in  Bethany,'  beyond  Jordan."  'Abdrah  means  "  passage," 
or  "  ferry;  "  and  the  only  place  where  this  word  is  found  on  the  maps  is  "  just 
above  the  i^lace  where  the  Jalud  Eiver,  flowing  down  the  valley  of  Jezreel 
and  by  Beisan,  debouches  into  the  Jordan."  (See  Tent-Work  in  Palestine, 
vol.  ii.  p.  64,  seq.) 


APPENDIX.  391 

may  sni)i>ose,  but  tme  stream,  -were  the  source  of  a  large  supply  or  great 
abundance  of  "water,  and  thus  furnished  a  fit  place  for  the  immersion  of 
great  numbers.  Hence  the  evangelist  informs  us  of  the  presence  of 
"  many  waters  "  or  much  water  in  ^non  as  a  reason  for  John's  baptiz- 
ing there ;  and  the  plain  and  natural  imislication  of  his  whole  statement 
is,  that  these  many  waters  were  employed  solely  for  the  purpose  of  bap- 
tizing. Our  friends  may,  if  they  please,  metamorphose  these  "  hudata 
polla  "  —  a  phrase  which  elsewhere  in  the  Scriptures  denotes  a  large  collec- 
tion or  great  body  of  water  —  into  many  "springs  "  or  many  "  streams," 
provided  they  leave  us,  as  they  generally  do,  a  sufl&ciency  of  water  for 
immersion.  If,  now,  ^non  was  distant  from  any  river,  and  its  springs 
were  the  source  of  the  waters  which  were  used  for  the  baptizing  of  great 
multitudes,  then  there  is  a  manifest  and  sufficient  reason  why  the 
evangelist,  in  accounting  for  John's  baptizing  in  ^non,  should  state  that 
there  was  "  much  water  "  in  that  place.  But  if  ^nou,  like  Bethany, 
bordered  upon  the  Jordan,  then  it  were  as  superfluous  and  senseless  to 
make  mention  of  its  many  waters  in  connection  with  baptism,  as  it 
would  have  been  to  speak  of  the  many  waters  of  Bethany,  ^non  and 
Salim,  says  Dr.  Robinson,  "  were  probably  at  a  considerable  distance 
from  the  Jordan ;  otherwise  the  evangelist  would  hardly  have  mentioned 
the  abundance  of  water." 

If,  as  Dr.  Dale  intimates,  this  Bethany  (meaning  the  "house  of 
dates,"  or,  as  some  suppose,  "house  of  ships;  "  although,  according  to 
Robinson's  "  Physical  Geography  of  the  Hbly  Land,"  p.  165,  "  it  does 
not  appear  that  a  boat  ever  floated  on  the  waters  of  the  Jordan  until  the 
present  century,  .  .  .  the  stream  was  everywhere  forded")  lay  some  .dis- 
tance "beyond  the  Jordan,"  then  we  can  only  conclude  that  the  events 
referred  to  in  John  i.  19-27  transpired  in  this  Bethany,  while  the  place 
"  where  John  was  baptizing  "  was  the  Jordan.  It  is  not  in  the  gospel 
narrative  distinctly  stated,  as  is  the  case  with  ^non,  that  John  was 
baptizing  in  Bethany. 

Dr.  Dale,  as  we  have  seen,  from  the  force  of  the  word  "  also "  in 
John  iii.  23,  makes  both  John  and  Jesus  baptize  in  one  place,  though 
in  or  at  different  springs.  But  nothing  in  the  original  demands  this 
interpretation  :  and  we  prefer,  for  many  reasons,  the  rendering  of  Meyer; 
to  wit,  that  "  John  was  also  engaged  in  baptizing,"  as  well  as  Jesus. 
"When  Jesus,"  says  Olshauscu,  "  left  the  city.  He  bent  His  steps  towards 
the  Jordan,  where  He  baptized.  .  .  .  John,  also,  was  baptizing  in  the 
neighborhood  (iEnon),  because  the  water  there,  being  deep,  afforded  con- 
veniences for  immersion."  It  is  a  little  singular  that  a  modern  Greek 
sea-captain,  as  we  somewhere  have  read,  should  speak  of  the  shallow 
waters,  where  his  vessel  could  not  easily  float,  as  being  oliga,  or  "  few." 

One  chief  object  of  Dr.  Robinson  in  visiting  the  northern  GhOr  of  the 


392  APPENDIX. 

Jordan,  on  his  second  tour  in  Palestine,  was  "to  make  all  possible 
search  for  Salim,  and  the  JEnon  near  by,  where  John  is  recorded  as  bap- 
tizing ;  "  but,  after  making  constant  and  persevering  inquiries,  they 
"  could  obtain  no  trace  of  corresponding  names  or  ruins,"  and  were 
obliged  to  confess,  "  Our  search  was  fruitless."  He  further  adds,  "that, 
so  far  as  the  language  of  Scripture  is  concerned,  the  place  near  which 
John  was  baptizing  may  just  as  well  have  been  the  Salim,  over  against 
Nabulus,  where,  as  we  have  seen,  there  are  two  large  fountains " 
("Biblical  Researches,"  vol.  iii.  p.  333).  Lieut.  Conder,  in  his  "Tent- 
Work  in  Palestine,"  vol.  i.  p.  01,  also  locates  iEuon  in  this  vicinity; 
to  wit,  at  "  the  springs  which  lie  at  the  head  of  the  great  Far'ah 
['  Fari'a ']  Valley,  the  open  highway  from  the  Damieh  ford  of  Jor- 
dan to  Shechem.  .  .  .  The  head-springs  are  found  in  an  open  valley 
surrounded  by  desolate  and  shapeless  hills.  The  water  gushes  out  over 
a  stony  bed,  and  flows  rapidly  down  in  a  fine  stream  surrounded  by 
bushes  of  oleander.  The  supply  is  perennial ;  and  a  continual  succession 
of  little  springs  occurs  along  the  bed  of  the  valley,  so  that  the  current 
becomes  the  principal  western  affluent  of  Jordan  south  of  the  vale  of 
Jezreel.  The  valley  is  open  in  most  parts  of  its  course,  and  we  find  the 
two  requisites  for  the  scene  of  baptism  of  a  huge  multitude,  —  an  open 
space,  and  abundance  of  water.  Not  only  does  the  name  of  Salem 
occur  in  the  village,  three  miles  south  of  the  valley,  but  the  name  ^non, 
signifying  'springs,'  is  recognizable  at  the  village  of  Ainun,  four  miles 
north  of  the  stream.  .  .  .  'the  site  of  Wady  Far'ah  is  the  only  one 
where  all  the  requisites  are  met,  —  the  two  names,  the  fine  water-supply, 
the  proximity  of  the  desert,  and  the  open  character  of  the  ground." 

It  is  our  opinion,  not  that  Samaria,  but  that  the  country  of  Judaea,  or 
its  "wilderness  "  (lying  east  and  south  of  Jerusalem,  bordering  on  the 
Lower  Jordan  and  the  Dead  Sea),  where  John  was  born  (in  Juttah,  as 
E,eland  and  Robinson  suppose),  and  where  he  lived  and  labored,  and 
•near  which,  in  the  Castle  of  Machserus,  on  the  eastern  coast  of  the  Dead 
Sea,  as  Josephus  relates,  he  lost  his  life,  must  furnish  the  baptisteries 
for  all  of  John's  baptisms.  Hence  we  have  been  greatly  interested  in 
the  discovery,  by  J.  T.  Barclay,  M.D.  (a  missionary  of  the  Campbellite 
persuasion),  of  "many  fountains"  and  of  "much  water"  in  the  Wady 
Farah,  about  six  miles  north-east  of  Jerusalem  (see  his  "  City  of  the 
Great  King,"  pp.  558-570).  Having  heard  of  "  a  wonderful  monster 
fountain "  near  the  junction  of  "Wady  Farah  (Valley  of  Delight)  with 
Wady  Fuwah,  they  were  determined  to  visit  it.  "  Arrived  at  the  spot," 
he  says,  "we  found,  that,  though  not  exactly  realizing  the  American 
idea  of  a  river,  it  was  certainly  a  most  copious  [though  intermittent] 
fountain  and  'depth  springing  out  of  the  valley,'  capable  of  driving 
several  mills  as  it  gushes  forth  from  the  earth.  .  .  .  We  passed  some 


APPENDIX.  393 

half-dozen  expansions  of  the  stream,  constituting  the  most  beautiful 
natural  natatoria  I  have  ever  seen ;  the  water  rivalling  the  atmosphere 
itself  in  transparency  ;  of  depths  varying  from  a  few  inches  to  a  fathom 
and  more,  shaded  on  one  or  both  sides  by  umbrageous  fig-trees,  and  some- 
times contained  in  naturally  excavated  basins  of  red-mottled  marble,  an 
occasional  variegation  of  the  common  limestone  of  the  country.  These 
pools  are  supplied  by  some  half-dozen  springs  of  the  purest  and  coldest 
water,  bursting  from  rocky  crevices  at  various  intervals.  '  Verily,'  thought 
I,  '  we  have  stumbled  upon  ^non.'  '  Many  fountains,'  I  believe,  is  what 
Professor  Robinson,  the  great  biblical  geographer  and  lexicographer, 
prefers  rendering  the  '  polla  hudata  '  of  ^non :  and  here  are  not  only 
'  many  fountains,'  but  literally  '  much  water ; '  thus  accommodating 
each  translation.  .  .  .  On  inquiring  [of  a  native],  when  within  a  mile 
and  a  half  of  the  fountains,  '  Shu  ismo  hatha  ready  ? '  ('  AVhat  is  the  name 
of  this  wady  ? ')  I  had  the  satisfaction  of  hearing  him  pronounce  the 
identical  word  (Salim),  and  soon  was  conducted  to  the  site  of  an 
ancient  city.  It  is  true,  that,  on  further  inquiry  of  others,  it  was 
pronounced  somewhat  differently,  —  Sillim,  Silim,  Sulim,  Saleim,  SaUem, 
Selam,  &c. ;  quite  as  near  an  approximation,  however,  to  the  present 
Hebrew  orthography,  as  could  be  expected  from  the  slippery  tongue 
of  Arabs.  .  .  .  The  perfectly  limpid  water  of  the  upper  fountain,  being 
received  into  a  somewhat  hemispherical  or  bowl-shaped  excavation 
in  reddish  and  greenish  mottled  marble,  eight  or  ten  feet  diameter, 
and  about  half  as  deep,  is  not  inaptly  compared  to  a  bird's  eye 
when  reflecting  the  hues  of  the  sky."  The  waters,  after  "tumbling 
eastward  ten  miles,"  empty  into  the  Jordan  under  the  name  of  Kelt; 
which  wady  (or  valley),  as  Dr.  Robinson  conjectures,  "may  have  beea 
the  Brook  Cherith,  where  the  prophet  Elijah  hid  himself,  and  was  fed 
by  ravens"  (1  Kings,  xvii.  3,  7).  Dr.  Barclay  expresses  "an  assured 
conviction  that  this  place  is  indeed  no  other  than  the  ^non  (fountains) 
near  to  Salim  where  John  was  baptizing,  '  because  there  was  much 
water  there.' "     We  hope  to  hear  further  from  this  interesting  locality. 


NOTE  III.,   P.  180. 

Many  subterranean  reservoirs  have  been  discovered  in  the  Holy  City 
since  even  the  time  of  Dr.  Robinson;  yet  he  himself,  as  it  appears  to  me, 
has,  by  his  own  description  of  the  fountains,  cisterns,  and  pools  in  and 
around  Jerusalem  (in  his  "  Biblical  Researches  in  Palestine,"  vols.  i. 
pp.  323-3^8,  and  iii.  pp.  243-251),  effectually  removed  the  "  apparently 
insuperable  difficulty  in  the  scarcity  of  water  "  which  to  his  mind  "  lies 
against  the  idea  of  the  full  immersion  "  of  the  thousands  (eight,  as  he 


394  APPENDIX. 

supposes)  who  were  converted  and  baptized  at  and  soon  after  the  time 
of  the  Pentecost.  He  finds,  it  is  true,  but  "three  small  fountains" 
outside  of  the  city.  The  first  of  these  three,  and  the  one  nearest  the 
city  on  the  south-east,  is  the  Fountain  of  the  Virgin  (sometimes- called 
the  Fountain  of  Siloam,  in  distinction  from  its  pool);  perhaps,  says 
Eobinson,  the  "King's  Pool"  of  Neh.  ii.  14,  and  "  Solomon's  Pool"  of 
Josephus,  and  designated  by  Capt.  Charles  Warren  (in  the  "Eecovery 
of  Jerusalem  ")  as  the  En  Rogel  of  the  Old  Testament.  From  its  inter- 
mittent flow,  Eobinson  conjectures  that  it  may  have  been  the  Pool  of 
Bethesda.  Contrary  to  the  usual  opinion,  this  fountain,  perhaps  ttie 
fons  perennis  aquce  of  Tacitus,  appears  to  have  no  connection  with  the 
subterranean  fountains  or  pools  of  the  temple-grounds;  yet  Capt.  War- 
ren makes  mention  of  "  a  passage  cut  seventy  feet  into  the  rocky  hill- 
side on  a  level,  [opening]  into  a  perpendicular  shaft  running  upwards  for 
fifty  feet,  then  a  flight  of  steps,  a  long,  broad  passage,  and  again  a  flight 
of  steps  leading  to  a  vault  on  the  side  of  Ophel,  inside  the  city  walls." 
By  this  means,  as  he  supposes,  the  waters  of  the  fountain  were  made 
available  to  "the  people  of  the  city  from  the  inside,"  when  Hezekiah. 
"  stopped  "  the  fountain  on  the  outside  (2  Chron.  xxsii.  4).  (See  War- 
ren's "  Underground  Jerusalem,"  p.  332.)  Other  writers,  we  may  re- 
mark, have  regarded  this  rock-cut  passage  as  having  been  connected 
with  the  drainage  of  the  city,  and  have  spoken  of  it  as  "an  ancient 
sewer."  The  basin  of  this  fountain,  which  is  reached  by  descending 
two  flights  of  steps,  twenty-six  in  number  (or  twenty-nine  according  to 
Professor  Hackett),  is  ""fifteen  feet  long  by  five  or  six  wide."  Lieut. 
Conder  strangely  supposes  that  this  fountain  is  the  "  Upper  Gihon  or 
'  spring-head,'  whence  Hezekiah's  aqueduct  still  leads  down  to  Siloam  or 
Gihon  in  the  valley."  "  Every  day,"  according  to  this  writer,  "crowds 
of  both  sexes  go  down  to  the  spring,  and,  entering  the  dark  archway, 
descend  the  steps,  and  await  the  fitful  troubling  of  the  waters,  which 
rise  suddenly  and  immerse  them,  fully  clothed,  nearly  up  to  the  neck  " 
(see  "  Tent- Work  in  Palestine,"  vol.  i.  p.  313).  Query:  What  do  they 
do  with  their  wet  clothes'?  Connected  with  this  fountain  by  a  subter- 
ranean passage  seventeen  hundred  and  fifty  feet  long  (through  which 
Dr.  Eobinson  "  crawled,"  —  the  first  foreigner,  we  believe,  who  performed 
that  feat),  though  the  distance  by  a  straight  line  is  but  twelve  hundred 
feet,  is  the  Pool  of  Siloam,  at  the  foot  of  Ophel  (see  ISTeh.  iii.  15,  16 ; 
John  ix.  7),  —  "a  most  disappointing  pool "  to  Lieut.  Conder,  yet  one 
which,  in  Josephus' time,  had  "sweet  water"  (nowadays  some  call  it 
"  brackish,"  others  "  insipid  ")  "in  it,  and  this  in  great  plenty  "  ("  Wars," 
.5:  4,  1,  and  5  :  9,  4).  This  pool —  supposed  by  George  Williams  (in  his 
"  Holy  City,"  p.  478)  and  by  Capt.  Warren  to  be  the  veritable  pool  of 
Hezekiah  (2  Kings  xx.  20),  or  the  "  King's  Pool"  (Neh.  ii.  14,  iii.  15), 


APPENDIX.  395 

and  to  have  been  connected  -with  "  a  much  larger  reservoir  than  the 
present,  immediately  to  the  east  of  it,"  and  still  further  designated  by- 
Williams  as  the  "  Lower  Pool"  of  Isa.  xxii.  9  —  is  fifty-three  feet  long, 
eighteen  wide,  and  nineteen  in  depth.  Below  this,  "  at  the  point  where 
the  three  valleys  of  Jerusalem  —  viz.,  Hinnom,  Kedron,  and  the  Tyropoe- 
on  —  meet  at  the  south-east  of  the  city,"  is  the  Bir  Eyub,  the  well  of  Job 
(or  Joab  or  Nehemiah),  probably  the  En  Rogel  of  the  Old  Testament. 
The  shaft  of  this  well  is  sunk  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  feet  deep 
through  limestone  roct.  "I  have  seen,"  says  Dr.  W.  M.  Thomson,  for 
many  years  a  missionary  in  Jerusalem,  "  the  water  gushing  out  like  a 
mill-stream  some  fifteen  rods  south  of  the  well,  and  then  the  whole 
valley  was  alive  with  people  bathing  in  it,"  &c.  Still  below  this,  "  about 
five  hundred  yards  south  of  this  well,"  is  a  place  called  by  the  Arabs 
"  The  Well  of  the  Steps ;  "  and  here,  twelve  feet  below  the  surface,  Capt. 
Warren  discovered  a  great  rock-cut  aqueduct  leading  some  eighteen  hun- 
dred feet  northward,  and  to  the  west  of  the  well  of  Job,  ending  abruptly 
at  the  northern  terminus,  with  rock  on  all  sides ;  from  which  circum- 
stance he  supposes  that  this  great  work  was  never  completed.  Several 
staircases  were  found  leading  down  to  it ;  and  the  conclusion  which  the 
explorer  reached  was,  that  this  deep  cutting  was  "  probably  for  pure 
water."  Mr.  Williams  conjectures,  that,  as  the  water  of  the  well  of  Job 
has  not  the  "  insipid  "  taste  of  that  of  Siloam  and  of  the  wells  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  Haram  or  temple  area,  it  may  be  derived  from  an  under- 
ground Kedron  torrent,  —  "  the  brook  that  ran  through  the  midst  of  the 
land,"  which  Hezekiah  "  stopped."  Capt.  Warren  holds  that  many 
fountains  have  been  "stopped ;"  that,  owing  to  the  destruction  of  the 
forests,  the  rainfall  in  Palestine  has  greatly  decreased  ;  and  that  many 
brooks  which  once  flowed  with  water  have  been  filled  up,  and  have 
become  dry ;  though  he  supposes  that  "  the  brook  which  overflowed 
through  the  midst  of  the  land  "  was  the  one  which  was  made  to  flow, 
and  which,  indeed,  still  continues  to  flow,  through  "  a  rock-cut  aqueduct 
of  very  ancient  construction  running  north  and  south,"  which  the  ex- 
plorers discovered  deep  down  below  the  ruins  of  "  Robinson's  arch," 
near  the  south-west  angle  of  the  liaram  walls.  In  regard  to  the  Kedron 
on  the  east  of  the  city,  Capt.  Warren  says,  "  The  present  bottom  is 
not  the  true  bed;  but  so  enormous  is  the  accumulation  of  rubbish  on 
the  east  side  of  the  temple,  so  many  millions  of  tons  have  fallen  down 
the  steep  slopes,  that  the  bottom  of  the  valley  has  been  quite  filled  up, 
and  the  present  bed  is  really  the  side  of  the  opposite  hill  of  Olivet, 
some  hundred  feet  to  east  of,  and  about  forty  feet  above,  the  true  bottom. 
During  the  rains,  water  still  flows  along  the  true  bed  of  the  Kedron,  so 
far  underground,  and  in  such  volumes,  that  during  a  heavy  storm  our 
gallery  frames  were  damaged,  and  partly  washed  away."    And  he  gives 


396  APPENDIX. 

us  to  understand  that  the  old  water-course  in  this  valley  "still  runs 
with  water,  through  many  months  of  the  year,  deep  under  the  present 
surface"  ("Underground  Jerusalem,"  pp.  160,  161).  Certainly,  in 
former  days,  there  were  more  fountains  around  Jerusalem  than  at 
present,  or  there  would  have  been  no  need  in  Hezekiah's  time  (2  Chron. 
xxxii.  4)  for  '■'■much  people"  to  have  "stopped  all  the  fountains  and 
the  brook  which  overflowed  through  the  midst  of  the  land,"  so  that  the 
Assyrian  army  could  not,  when  besieging  Jerusalem,  "find  much 
water"  (Hebrew,  "  many  waters  ") .  A  writer  in  Smith's  "  Bible  Dic- 
tionary "  (James  Fergusson)  supposes  that  "  at  one  time  a  very  copious 
source  [of  water]  existed  somewhere  north  of  the  town,  the  outflow  of 
which  was  stopped  possibly  by  Hezekiah,  and  the  water  led  under- 
ground to  reservoirs  in  the  city  and  below  the  temple."  "  Like  Mecca, 
Jerusalem  seems  to  have  been  in  all  ages  remarkable  for  some  secret 
source  of  water,  from  which  it  was  copiously  supplied  during  even  the 
worst  periods  of  siege  and  famine,  and  which  never  appears  to  have 
failed. during  any  period  of  its  history." 

In  Williams'  "  Holy  City "  descriptions  are  given  of  two  fountains 
situated  within  the  city  walls.  The  first  is  the  well  to  the  south  of  and 
near  the  Haram  enclosure,  which  Dr.  Eobinson  in  vain  sought  permission 
to  enter,  but  whose  descent  was  subsequently  effected,  with  no  slight 
degree  of  romantic  daring,  by  our  fellow-countryman.  Rev.  S.  Wolcott, 
whose  exploit  is  fully  reported  in  "  Bibliotheca  Sacra,"  1843,  pp.  24-28. 
He  found  the  well  to  be  eighty-two  feet  and  a  half  deep,  and  the  water 
about  four  feet  and  a  half.  At  the  bottom  was  a  side-passage  running 
south-easterly,  which  he  explored  for  eighty  feet,  where  he  was  stopped 
by  a  basin  or  w&ll  of  unknown  depth,  on  the  opposite  side  of  which 
the  wall  shut  down  to  the  water.  Dr.  J.  T.  Barclay,  in  1853,  also  suc- 
ceeded in  descending  this  well.  Pie  followed  the  "stream"  southerly 
for  one  hundred  and  five  feet,  when  all  further  progress  was  cut  off  by 
the  roof,  the  passage  coming  in  contact  with  the  water.  The  well  thus 
appears  to  have  no  connection  with  the  temple-grounds,  while  its  waters 
have  the  "insipid"  Siloam  taste.  The  next  fountain,  hitherto  un- 
noticed, says  Williams,  is  within  the  precincts  of  the  Church  of  the 
Flagellation,  in  the  Via  Dolorosa.  In  repairing  the  church  "  an  immense 
quantity  of  water  was  required,  and  the  well  in  question  was  exhausted 
and  cleaned  out.  In  two  days  it  was  full  again,  although  it  was  towards 
the  end  of  the  dry  season,  before  any  rain  had  fallen  "  ("  Holy  City," 
p.  461).  Robinson  calls  it  an  "ordinary  cistern  of  rain-water."  But,  if 
so,  how  could  it  fill  up  so  quickly  ?  Williams  says,  "I  tasted  the  water : 
it  was  the  water  of  Siloam." 

Thei'e  are  at  present  but  two  large  pools  within  the  city  walls,  —  that 
of  Bethesda,  so  called  (the  Birket  Israil,  or  Pool  of  Israel,  of  the  natives. 


APPENDIX.  397 

and  the  Struthius  of  Josephus),  on  the  east  side,  and  the  Pool  of  Heze- 
kiah  on  the  west,  called  by  the  natives  Birket  el  Hammam,  or  Pool  of 
the  Bath,  because  "its  waters  are  used  to  supply  a  bath  in  the  vicinity" 
(Robinson).  The  former  pool  Dr.  Robinson  makes  to  be  three  hundred 
and  sixty  feet  long  by  one  hundred  and  thirty  feet  wide  and  seventy-five 
feet  deep ;  and,  by  measuring  under  the  arches,  he  found  it  to  be  four 
hundred  and  sixty  feet  in  length,  "  and  how  much  more  we  do  not  know." 
Waters  from  a  large  Haram  cistern  flow  into  this  pool.  Capt.  Warren 
speaks  of  it  as  "an  enormous  reservoir,  nearly  a  hundred  feet  deep." 
Yet,  capacious  as  it  is,  the  exploring-expedition  discovered  that  it  had  an 
overflow-passage  "  twenty-five  feet  above  the  bottom  of  the  pool,"  for  the 
escape  of  its  redundant  waters.  The  so-called  "  Pool  of  Hezekiah  "  (the 
"  Amygdalon  "  of  Josephus,  and,  in  Warren's  view,  the  Lower  Gihon), 
which,  as  Dr.  Thomson's  guide  told  him,  "  was  used  chiefly  for  baths," 
and  which  he  speaks  of  as  "  an  immense  reservoir,  capable  of  holding 
water  sufficient  for  half  the  city,"  is,  according  to  Dr.  Robinson's  meas- 
urement, "about  two  hundred  and  forty  feet  long,  and  a  hundred  and 
forty-four  feet  wide;  "  i.e.,  over  three-fourths  of  an  acre  in  extent.  This 
pool  was  probably  once  connected  with  the  Tower  Hippicus  mentioned 
by  Josejphus,  with  the  royal  palace  on  Mount  Zion,  and  with  the  "im- 
mense conduit "  recently  discovered  beneath  the  mountain  (see  Robin- 
son, vol.  iii.  p.  243,  seq.'). 

The  Bordeaux  Pilgrim  (of  the  fourth  century)  tells  us  that  "there 
are  at  Jerusalem  two  great  pools  at  the  side  of  the  temple.  .  .  .  But 
more  within  the  city  are  two  twin  pools,  having  fine  porches,"  &c.  Capt. 
Warren  thinks  that  two  of  these  pools  are  the  Souterrains  of  the  Hill 
Bezetha,  under  the  Convent  of  the  Sisters  of  Sion.  The  one  is  "  a  deep 
fosse  cut  in  .the  rock,  about  fifty  feet  wide  and  a  hundred  and  sixty- 
five  feet  long ; "  and  the  other  is  "  a  hundred  and  twenty-seven  feet 
long,  and  from  twenty  to  twenty-six  feet  across."  In  the  "Recovery  of 
Jerusalem,"  p.  16,  Capt.-  C.  W.  Wilson  speaks  of  "a  large  pool"  on  the 
south  side  of  the  Haram  area,  and  north  of  the  "  wailing-place,"  which 
is  "  partly  covered  by  an  arch  "  (now  called  Wilson's),  "built  with  stones 
of  great  size,  but  without  mortar,  and  having  a  span  of  forty-two  feet." 
Robinson  says  this  tank,  "El  Burak,"  discovered  in  18-45,  is  "eighty-four 
feet  long  by  forty-two  feet  broad,  with  a  vaulted  roof  some  twenty-four 
feet  high ; "  and  he  thinks  it  had  "  some  connection  "  with  the  aqueduct 
from  Solomon's  springs.  Capt.  Wilson  also  mentions  three  pools  once 
existing  in  the  city,  now  filled  up  and  destroyed ;  namely,  "  one  near  the 
Jaffa  gate,  one  near  the  gate  of  the  Chain  of  the  Sanctuary,  and  a  third 
near  the  Church  of  St.  Anne." 

The  principal  pools  outside  of  and  near  the  city  walls  are  the  upper 
and  lower  pools  of  Gihon,  west  of  the  city.     The  ufiper  pool,  Mamilla' 


398    ■  APPENDIX. 

(which  is,  perhaps,  the  "  Serpent's  Pool "  of  Josephus) ,  is  three  hundred 
and  sixteen  feet  long,  two  hundred  and  nine  feet  average  width,  and 
eighteen  feet  deep.  This  feeds  the  "Pool  of  Hezekiah"  and  other 
reservoirs  of  the  city.  In  regard  to  Hezekiah's  bringing  water  from 
Gihon  "  down  to  the  west  side  of  the  city  of  David,"  see  2  Chrou.  xxxii. 
30  ;  2  Kings,  xx.  20  ;  Isa.  xxii.  11 ;  and  Ecclus.  xlviii.  17.  The  lower 
pool,  called  also  the  "  Pool  of  the  Sultan,"  is  five  hundred  and  ninety- 
two  feet  long,  average  width  two  hundred  and  sixty  feet,  and  about  forty 
feet  deep,  thus  covering  about  three  acres  and  a  half,  —  an  "  immense 
pool,"  says  Barclay;  "a  cistern,"  says  Thomson,  "  of  prodigious  capacity." 
Capt.  Wilson  refers  to  "  a  pool  near  the  tombs  of  the  kings,"  north  of 
the  city,  "now  nearly  filled  with  soil,"  which,  he  thinks,  "must  have 
been  the  largest  pool  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  city." 

We  will  now  take  about  a  two-hours'  ride  in  a  southerly  direction,  —  to 
Bethlehem  and  a  little  beyond  that  village;  and  some  six  miles  from 
Jerusalem  "  as  the  crow  flies  "  we  shall  come  to  the  so-called  "  Solomon's 
Pools"  (Eccles.  ii.  6),  and  which,  as  Thomson  and  J.  Wilson  aver,  "are 
worthy  of  Solomon."  The  upper  or  westernmost  pool  is  three  hundred 
and  eighty  feet  long  by  two  hundred  and  thirty-six  feet,  and  two  hun- 
dred and  twenty -nine  feet  wide,  its  greatest  depth  fifty  feet.  The  middle 
one  is  four  hundred  and  twenty-three  feet  long  by  two  hundred  and  fifty 
feet,  and  one  hundred  and  sixty  feet  broad,  greatest  depth  thirty-nine  feet. 
The  easternmost,  or  lowest,  and  largest  pool,  measures  in  length  five 
hundred  and  eighty-two  feet  by  two  hundred  and  seven  feet,  and  a  hun- 
dred and  forty-eight  feet  in  breadth,  greatest  depth  fifty  feet.  This 
pool  alone  covers  about  three  acres  and  three-eighths  ;  and  "  when  full," 
as  Dr.  Thomson  says, ."  it  would  float  the  largest  man-of-war  that  ever 
ploughed  the  ocean."  The  surface-measurement  of  the  three  pools  is 
nearly  six  acres  and  a  half.  Lying  just  above  these  pools  was  the 
"sealed  fountain,"  and  near  by  was  the  Ain  Etan  (or  Etam).  These 
waters  were  led  to  Jerusalem  by  two  aqueducts  (the  "  high  level  "  and 
the  "low  level,"  as  described  by  Wilson  and  Warren),  and  supplied  in 
part  the  reservoirs  and  cisterns  of  the  temple-grounds. 

But  were  these  pools  in  existence  in  our  Saviour's  time  ?  and  were 
they,  indeed,  constructed  by  Solomon?  To  this  query  Dr.  Thomson 
(vol.  ii.  p.  526)  thus  replies :  "  So  far,  therefore,  as  the  works  them- 
selves are  concerned,  they  may  date  back  to  the  age  of  Solomon  ;  and, 
if  speculation  and  inference  were  of  avail  in  such  questions,  we  might 
suppose  that  when  Solopaon  was  building  his  magnificent  temple,  and 
adapting  his  capital  to  be  the  centre  of  the  whole  Hebrew  race,  he  would 
not  fail  to  make  ample  provision  for  the  indispensable  article  of  water. 
He.  therefore,  may  have  constructed  the  pools  beyond  Bethlehem,  and 
built  the  aqueduct  which   brought  a  supply  to  the  temple   sufficient 


APPENDIX.  399 

for  the  ablutions  and  other  services  of  this  great  sanctuary ;  and  as 
the  prodigious  assemblies  of  the  national  feasts  would  require  a  large 
amount  of  water  in  different  quarters,  and  easy  of  access,  he  made  those 
pools  on  the  west,  and  others  of  smaller  size,  distributed  in  and  about 
the  city  for  the  greater  convenience  of  the  pilgrims.  We  find  in  these 
conditions  an  adequate  emergency  and  a  suitable  occasion  for  the  con- 
struction of  these  reservoirs,  —  a  great  want,  a  king  wealthy  and  wise 
and  given  to  building,  and  a  time  of  peace.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  we  are  speaking  of  works  quite  unique  and  extraordinary.  Xo 
other  city  in  this  part  of  the  world  had  any  thing  like  these  cisterns, 
and  the  supposition  that  most  of  them  were  made  by  Solomon  and  his 
immediate  successors  is  not  extravagant."  Dr.  Robinson  also  concedes 
that  "  their  antiquity  may  well  go  back  to  the  days  of  Solomon  "  (see 
his  "Physical  Geography  of  the  Holy  Land,"  p.  284).  Josephus,  in  his 
"  Wars  of  the  Jews,"  2  :  9,  4,  states  that  Pilate  expended  the  sacred 
treasures,  called  Corban,  "  upon  aqueducts,  whereby  he  brought  water 
from  the  distance  of  four  hundred  furlongs ;  "  and  Lieut.  Conder  thinks 
these  pools  to  be  "  more  probably  of  the  same  date  as  the  aqueduct 
passing  by  them  which  was  constructed  by  Pontius  Pilate."  He  says, 
"  To  the  north  (of  Bethsur)  we  discovered  a  ruin;  .  .  .  and  near  it  we 
found  the  head  of  Pilat'  's  great  aqueduct  to  Jerusalem,  never  before 
traced  to  its  real  commencement,  which  is  thirteen  miles  from  Jerusa- 
lem as  the  crow  ffies,  and  forty-one  miles  and  a  half  by  the  aqueduct." 

And  what  about  the  cisterns  of  Jerusalem  ?  "  The  main  dependence," 
says  Dr.  Thomson  (vol.  ii.  p.  525),  "  for  a  constant  and  convenient  supply, 
is,  and  always  has  been,  I  suppose,  the  domestic  cisterns.  Every  house 
has  one  or  more ;  so  has  every  church,  mosque,  convent,  castle,  and  bath. 
.  .  .  The  house  I  first  rented  in  Jerusalem  had  three  cisterns :  that  of 
Mr.  Lanneau,  my  missionary  associate,  had  four;  and  two  of  his  were 
very  large.  No  fact  in  relation  to  this  country  is  better  attested  than 
the  extreme  antiquity  of  cisterns,  and  nothing  about  old  sites  has 
so  much  surprised  me  as  the  immense  number  of  them.  Often,  where 
every  trace  of  buildings  has  disappeared,  the  whole  site  is  perforated 
with  these  underground  reservoirs."  Dr.  Robinson,  wliile  in  Jerusalem, 
on  his  first  visit  to  Palestine,  resided  in  the  family  of  Rev.  Mr.  Lanneau, 
in  one  of  '•  the  better  class  of  houses  ;  "  and  he  gives  the  dimensions  of  the 
cisterns  as  follows:  1.  Fifteen  feet  long,  eight  wide,  and  twelve  deep; 
2.  Eight  long,  four  wide,  and  fifteen  deep ;  3.  Ten  long,  ten  wide,  and 
fifteen  deep;  4.  Thirty  long,  thirty  wide,  and  twenty  deep.  This  last 
is  enormously  large,  and  the  numbers  given  are  the  least  estimate  ("  Bib- 
lical Researches,"  vol.  i.  p.  324).  We  have,  of  course,  neither  time  nor 
space  to  speak  of  all  the  more  important  cisterns  and  "underground 
reservoirs"  which    have    already  been   discovered  in  the  Holy   City. 


400  ,        APPENDIX. 

The  truth  is,  a  considerable  part  of  underground  Jerusalem  is  honey- 
combed with  excavations  made  chiefly  for  cistern  purposes:  and  this  is 
especially  the  case  with  the  Haram  esh  Sharif,  the  "Noble  Sanctuary;  " 
that  is,  the  Haram  area,  or  the  temple-grounds  of  Moriah.  "  The  exist- 
ence," says  G.  Williams,  "  of  immense  reservoirs  under  the  temple-area 
.  .  .  cannot  reasonably  be  doubted."  And  Capt.  Wilson,  in  the  "  Recovery 
of  Jerusalem,"  p.  17,  remarks,  "  One  of  the  peculiar  features  of  the 
sanctuary  is,  that  the  ground  is  perfectly  honeycombed  with  a  series  of 
remarkable  rock-hewn  cisterns,  in  which  the  water  brought  by  an  aque- 
duct from  Solomon's  pools,  near  Bethlehem,  was  stored."  Tacitus  says 
of  the  temple  hill  and  grounds,  "  Templum  in  modum  arcis,  —  fons  peren- 
nis  aquae,  cavati  sub  terra  montes,  et  piscinae,  cisternseque  servandis 
imbribus  :  "  that  is,  "A  perennial  spring  supplied  the  place  with  water; 
subterranean  caverns  were  scooped  out  in  the  mountain,  and  there  were 
basins  and  tanks  as  reservoirs  for  rain-water."  The  same  fact  is  indi- 
cated in  the  native  legend  regarding  the  sacred  rock  of  the  sanctuary ; 
to  wit,  that  it  "lay  on  the  top  leaves  of  a  palm-tree,  from  the  roots  of 
which  spring  all  the  rivers  of  the  world."  Dr.  Hackett,  in  a  note  to 
the  article  "Jerusalem"  in  Smith's  "Bible  Dictionary,"  states,  as  one 
result  of  the  discoveries  in  the  Haram  by  Capt.  Wilson  (recorded  in 
the  "Ordnance  Survey  of  Jerusalem"),  that  "on  the  premises  were 
found  twenty  vaults  or  cisterns,  varying  in  depth  from  twenty-three  to 
sixty-two  feet  and  a  half,  some  containing  water,  others  dry."  A  later 
assertion  of  Capt.  Warren,  who  "had  very  little  time  for  examining  this 
place,"  is,  that  the  "  great  number"  of  discovered  tanks  and  cisterns  (of 
which  between  thirty  and  forty  are  enumerated  by  him)  do  but  "point  to 
the  number  existing  yet  to  be  found."  In  the  "Bible  Dictionary,"  and 
in  the  works  of  Messrs.  Wilson  and  Warren,  plates  are  given,  on  which 
the  position,  shape,  and  size  of  many  of  these  subterranean  pools  are 
indicated.  "  Some  of  these  cisterns,"  says  Capt.  Wilson,  "  are  formed 
by,  as  it  were,  mining  out  the  soft  rock  (melekeh),  and  leaving  a  roof  of 
the  hard  rock  (mezzeJi)  which  lies  above  it ;  whilst  others  are  made  by 
making  an  open  excavation  like  a  tank,  and  then  arching  it  over  with 
masonry"  ("Recovery  of  Jerusalem,"  p.  17).  Capt.  Warren,  in  the 
same  work,  chap,  vii.,  entitled  "The  Tanks  and  Souterrains  of  the  Sanc- 
tuary," refers  to  tank  No.  1  as  "  a  tunnel  about  a  hundred  and  thirty  feet 
long  and  twenty-four  feet  wide,  cut  in  a  rock  for  eighteen  feet  from  bottom 
to  springing  of  arch,"  &c.  Of  No.  2  he  says,  "  This  is  a  large  tank  cut 
in  rock  ;  but  there  was  too  much  water  in  it  for  us  to  measure  it.  Length 
about  sixty  feet,  breadth  about  fifty  feet."  Nos.  5,  7,  16,  and  17  are 
noted  as  very  large  cisterns.  No.  11,  he  says,  "is  capable  of  holding 
about  seven  hundred  thousand  gallons  of  water."  The  largest  of  all  is 
the  "royal  cistern,"  "the  great  sea,"  marked  No.  8,  lying  in  the  south- 


APPENDIX.  401 

erly  part  of  the  Ilaram  area.  A  small  picture  view  of  this  sea  is  given  in 
Van  Lennep's  "  Bible  Lands,"  p.  51,  in  J.  T.  Barclay's  "  City  of  the  Great 
King,"  p.  526,  and  in  Professor  Sepp's  "Jerusalem  und  das  heilige 
Land,"  vol.  i.  p.  321.  Barclay  gives  its  dimensions  as  "seven  hundred 
and  thirty-six  feet  in  circuit,  and  forty-two  feet  in  depth,"  with  a  capacity 
of  about  "two  millions  of  gallons."  In  wading  through  this  "excavated 
sea,"  he  found  "the  water  nowhere  much  more  than  knee-deep."  Capt. 
Wilson  states  that  "one  of  the  cisterns,  that  known  as  the  Great  Sea, 
would  contain  two  million  gallons ;  and  the  total  number  of  gallons  which 
could  be  stoi'ed  [in  the  cisterns  of  the  Haram  or  temple-area]  probably 
exceeded  ten  millions"  ("Recovery  of  Jerusalem,"  p.  17).  And,  in  the 
"  Ordnance  Survey  of  Jerusalem,"  he  states  that  the  cisterns  of  the  Ilaram 
alone  are  sufficient  to  hold  a  year's  supply  for  the  whole  city.  We  notice 
but  one  pool  more,  that  marked  No.  3,  located,  like  Nos.  1,  2,  and  5,  near 
the  dome  of  the  Rock,  or  Mosque  of  Omar,  and  which,  Capt.  Warren  sug- 
gests, *'  may  have  been  the  '  House  of  Baptism,'  communicating  with  the 
room  Beth  Mokad  and  the  gate  Tadi."  The  Mishna  speaks  of  "houses 
of  baptism"  in  connection  with  the  temple,  —  one  upon  the  roof  of  the 
chamber  of  Parva  for  the  use  of  the  high  priest  on  the  day  of  atonement^ 
and  one  under  the  temple  for  the  priests.  "If  legal  defilement  hap- 
pened to  one  of  them,  he  went  out  and  proceeded  in  the  circuit  that  went, 
under  the  temple,  and  candles  flamed  on  either  side  until  he  arrived  at, 
the  house  of  baptism.  And  the  fire  was  there,  &c.  ...  He  desceadedi 
and  washed;  he  came  up  and  wiped  himself,  and  warmed  himself  before 
the  fire-pile"  (see  Rev.  Joseph  Barclay's  "Talmud,"  p.  242)..  Dr. 
Lightfoot  says  that  the  priests,  after  suffering  defilement,  "were  to  bathe; 
.  .  .  and  the  way  to  the  bathing-place  is  expressed  in  these  words  :  '  He 
goeth  down  a  turning  staircase  that  went  under  the  temple.'  .  .  .It  ap- 
peareth  it  Avas  some  vault  under  ground  through  which  they  passed,  into 
which  vault  they  went  down  by  a  turning  pair  of  stairs  out  of  the  north- 
west room  of  Beth  Mokad.  ...  It  seemeth  the  bath  was  under  ground, 
and  a  room  by  it  with  a  fire  in  it  to  warm  themselves  at  when  they  had 
done  bathing."  "It  is  clear,"  says  Warren,  "that  the  house  of  baptism 
was  down  in  some  underground  vault,"  &c.  We  wonder  whether  our 
Pedobaptist  friends  can  find  in  these  representations  any.  indication  of 
the  "  mode  "  of  these  "Judaic,"  priestly  baptisms,  or  whether  they  will 
deny  the  possibility  of  many  other  "houses  of  baptism"  im  the  large 
outer  courts  of  the  temple  area.  Our  belief  is,  that,  in  these  courts 
alone,  there  were  enough  water  facilities  for  the  immersing  of  many 
times  "  three  thousand  "  in  one  day. 

In  Barclay's  "  Talmud  "  we  learn  that  many  baptisms  were  prescribed 
■for  different  vessels  of  the  sanctuary,  and  for  differently  defiled  persons 
previous  to  eating  the  passover,  the  heave-offering,  the  tithes,  and  other 


402  APPENDIX. 

"holy  things."  Of  course  the  word  used  by  the  rabbins  to  describe 
these  "  diverse  baptisms  "  is  some  form  of  tabal,  to  dip. 

We  may  see 'what  provision  Solomon  made  for  having  water  within 
the  temple  by  referring  to  his  "molten  sea,"  estimated  to  hold  about 
seven  hundred  barrels  of  water,  and  the  ten  other  lavers  each  holding 
about  nine  or  ten  barrels.  The  "  Talmud  "  tells  us  that  in  the  molten 
sea  (which,  according  to  the  rabbins,  was  equal  to  "one  hundred  and 
fifty  cleansiug  pools,"  each  pool  [containing  forty  seahs]  sufficient  "  to 
cover  all  his  flesh,"  equivalent  to  "  a  cubit  square,  and  three  cubits  in 
height,"  reckoning  twenty-one  inches  (?)  to  the  cubit)  "  were  twelve  pipes, 
that  twelve  priests  might  wash  at  the  same  time.  There  was  a  cavity 
near  them  to  let  the  water  flow  olf  during  the  night "  ("  Talmud,"  by 
Joseph  Barclay,  LL.D.,  pp.  350,  370).  The  rabbins  do  not  appear  to 
term  this  washing  a  baptism. 

For  a  fuller  account  of  the  water-supply  of  Jerusalem  in  former  times, 
we  refer  our  readers  to  J.  T.  Barclay's  "  City  of  the  Great  King,"  chap. 
X.  pp.  291-332;  also  to  chap,  xviii.  pp.  512-543  for  the  present  "water 
resources  of  Jerusalem ; "  and  to  chap.  xix.  pp.  544-579  for  "  waters 
beyond  the  immediate  environs,  but  within  seven  miles  of  the  city ; " 
also  to  G.  Williams'  "Holy  City,"  vol.  ii.  chap.  v.  pp.  458-502;  to  Pro- 
fessor J.  N.  Sepp's  "Jerusalem  und  das  heilige  Land,"  sect.  xxii.  pp. 
321-347;  "  Quellen,  Teiche,  Kanale,  und  Cisternen;"  and  to  the  afore- 
cited works  of  Dr.  Robinson,  C.  Warren,  and  C.  W.  Wilson. 

Whatever  of  truth  there  may  be  in  Professor  J.  A.  Alexander's  state- 
ment, that  in  Jerusalem  "there  is  .  .  .  but  a  very  scanty  supply  of 
water,"  it  is  certain  that  no  one  can  truthfully  make  this  assertion  with 
reference  to  the  Jerusalem  of  our  Saviour's  time ;  and  our  hope  is,  never 
again  to  hear  or  to  see  mention  made  of  the  "  scarcity  of  water  "  in  Jeru- 
salem for  the  "full  immersion"  of  "three  thousand,"  or  of  "five,"  or  of 
•"  eight,"  or,  indeed,  of  almost  any  number  of  thousands. 


NOTE  IV.,   P.  192. 

Chrysostom,  describing  the  invasion  of  the  baptistery  by  the  sol- 
■diers,  says,  "  They  came  into  the  church  armed,  and  by  violence  expelled 
the  clergy,  killing  many  in  the  baptistery ;  by  which  the  women,  who 
were  at  that  time  unclothed  in  order  to  be  baptized,  were  put  into  such 
fright,  that  they  fled  away  naked,  and  could  not  stay,  in  their  terror, 
to  put  on  such  clothes  as  the  modesty  of  the  sex  required  "  (Bingham's 
^'Antiquities,"  vol.  i.  p.  536,  Bohn's  edition).  The  Latin  translation  of 
Chrysostom's  Letter  to  Pope  Innocent,  as  given  in  Montfaucon's  edition 
of  Chrysostom's  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  618,  seq.,  is  as  follows:  "Ipso  magno 


APPENDIX.  403 

sabbato  collecta  manus  militum,  ad  vesperam  diei  in  ecclesias  ingressa, 
clerum  omnem  qui  nobiscum  erat  vi  ejecit,  et  armis  sanctuarium  undique 
obsedit.  Mulieres  quoque  sacrarum  asdium  quae  per  illud  tempus  se 
exuerant  ut  baptizarentur  metu  gravis  istius  iucursus  nudte  aufugerunt ; 
neque  enim  concedebatur  ut  se  velarent,  sicut  mulieres  honestas  decet; 
multse  etiam  acceptis  vulneribus  ejiciebantur,  et  sanguine  implebentur 
piscinse  et  cruore  sacri  latices  rubescunt,"  &c.  See  also  Palladius'  "  Life 
of  Chrjsostom,"  chap,  ix.,  Montfaucon's  edition,  vol.  xiii.  p.  38;  and,  on 
the  subject  of  nude  immersion,  Bingham's  "  i\ntiquities  of  the  Christian 
Church,"  Dr.  Brenner's  "Darstellung  der  Verrichtung  der  Taufe,"  pp. 
20-23  (and  pp.  36,  37,  where  a  full  and  vivid  description  of  the  baptism  of 
the  Pomeranians,  men  and  women,  bj  Bishop  Otto,  is  given),  also  Smith's 
"Christian  Antiquities,"  vol.  i.  p.  160,  and  Dr.  Ilovey's  article  on  the 
"  Present  State  of  the  Baptismal  Controversy,"  in  "  Baptist  Quarterly " 
for  1875,  p.  129,  seq.  By  consulting  these  authorities,  we  learn  that  the 
sexes  were  baptized  apart;  that  the  deaconesses  prepared  the  women, 
led  them  into  the  waters  till  all  but  their  heads  were  covered,  when 
the  priest  came  to  the  side  of  the  font,  and,  pressing  down  their  heads 
under  water,  pronounced  the  formula,  and  then  departed.  The  dea- 
conesses then  took  them  out  of  the  water,  and  clothed  them  in  white 
garments.  By  the  use  of  curtain-fixtures  also,  as  suggested  in  Smith's 
"Christian  Antiquities,"  art.  "Baptism,"  and  other  like  arrangements, 
the  attempt,  at  least,  was  made  to  do  every  thing  "decently  and  in 
order." 

According  to  Hofling  ("  Sakrament  der  Taufe,"  vol.  i.  pp.  48-5,  486),  the 
claims  of  modesty  were  met  as  far  as  possible  in  three  ways  :  1.  Xotwith- 
standing  this  nudity,  the  parts  of  shame  could  remain  covered  and  con- 
cealed ;  2.  Men  and  women  were  baptized  apart,  and  were  generally  kept 
apart  from  each  other ;  and,  3.  The  administrator  could  see  and  touch  only 
the  head  of  the  candidate.  The  fathers  seemed  to  have  thought  that  this 
nudeness  better  represented  the  putting  off  of  the  old  man,  the  thorough 
cleansing  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  as  also  the  nakedness  of  Christ  himself 
on  the  cross.  It  is,  however,  a  disputed  point,  whether  this  "naked- 
ness "  was  an  absolute  nudity.  The  expression,  "  Xeophytarium  sine 
tunicis  et  calceamentis  existensium  (in  baptisterio),"  that  is,  "the 
newly-baptized,  without  tunics  and  sandals."  and  some  referehces  of  the 
fathers,  when  speaking  of  baptism,  to  the  nudeness  of  birth,  .of  Christ 
on  the  cross,  and  of  Adam  in  Paradise  (as  in  Ambrose,  7iudi  in  sceculo 
nascimur,  nudl  elimn  accedimus  ad  lavacrum,  &c. ;  so  also  in  Cyril  of  Jeru- 
salem, Chrysostom,  and  others),  seem  to  indicate  entire  nakedness.  This 
may  not,  however,  have  been  the  case  generally,  if  at  all.  Chrysostom, 
in  vol.  ii.  p.  268,  says,  "They  send  you  along,  after  your  instruction, 
unsandaled  and  disrobed,  with  only  a  c/dtonUcos  [under-tunic].  naked 


404  APPENDIX. 

and  barefoot  (gumnous  Tcai  anupndetous),  to  the  words  of  the  exorcisers," 
&c. ;  which,  as  we  think,  is  rightly  translated  in  the  accompanying  Latin 
version,  "  naked  and  barefoot,  clad  in  a  single  tunic  "  (una  tunica  oper- 
tos);  and  rightly  explained  in  the  Index  of  his  works,  "  Baptismnm 
accipiebant  nndis  pedibus  nnica  tunica  operti,"  &c. ;  that  is,  they  received 
baptism  [as  well  as  exorcism]  with  naked  feet,  and  covered  with  a  single 
tunic.  Few  persons,  we  suppose,  will  maintain  that  the  catechumens 
were  entirely  naked  during  the  ceremony  of  renunciation  and  exorcism 
in  the  church,  or  in  the  porch  of  the  baptistery  (for  there  appears  to 
have  been  a  twofold  renunciation  of  Satan),  prior  to  profession  of 
faith,  the  preparatory  anointing,  and  the  trine  immersion ;  yet  Chrysos- 
tom  says  they  were  at  that  time  "disrobed"  and  "naked."  Notwith- 
standing this  twofold  declaration  of  nudity,  we  know  that  they  were 
not  then  stark  naked,  but  that,  in  the  words  of  another,  "to  this  exor- 
cism they  went  barefoot,  and  strij)ped  of  their  upper  garments  "  (see  art. 
"  Exorcism  "  in  Smith's  "  Christian  Antiquities  ")  ;  and  our  belief  also  is, 
that  they  were  not  entirely  nude,  even  when  they  entered  the  baptismal 
font.  The  Apostolical  Constitutions,  after  describing  the  renunciation  of 
Satan,  his  service  and  his  works,  and  the  anointing  with  the  oil  of 
exorcism,  then  says,  "  And  let  the  bishop  or  the  presbyter  receive  him 
thus  unclothed  to  place  him  in  the  water  of  baptism.  Also  let  the  deacon 
go  with  him  into  the  water,  and  let  him  say  to  him,  helping  him  that 
he  may  say,  '  I  believe,'  &c.  And  let  him  who  receives  (baptism)  repeat 
after  all  these,  'I  believe  thus.'  And  he  who  bestows  it  shall  lay  his 
hand  upon  the  head  of  him  who  receives,  dipping  him  three  times, 
confessing  these  things  each  time."  Some  writers,  however,  following 
the  description  of  the  rite  as  given  by  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  suppose  this 
under-tunic  was  put  off  for  bodily  anointing  previous  to  baptism.  After 
speaking  of  the  candidate's  renouncing  Satan,  his  works,  pomp,  and 
service,  in  the  porch  or  outer  chamber  of  the  baptistery,  he  says,  "Bat, 
when  you  were  entered  into  the  inner  house,  you  took  off  your  garment 
(chiton,  not  the  chitoniscos,  or  undermost  garment),  and  thus  you  were 
anointed  with  the  holy  oil  from  the  top  of  the  head  to  the  sole  of  the 
feet.  .  .  .  Then  you  were  conducted  to  the  font  of  the  holy  baptism, 
and  every  one  of  you  was  asked  whether  he  believed  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  you  made  the  sound 
confession  of  faith,  and  were  three  times  baptized  in  the  water."  When 
this  church  father  says,  "  After  these  things  [the  preparatory  anointing, 
&c.,  which,  in  the  case  of  females,  was  performed  by  the  deaconesses] 
ye  were  led  by  the  hand  to  the  sacred  font  of  the  divine  baptism,  .  .  . 
and  each  one  was  asked  if  he  believes,  &c.,  .  .  .  and  ye  professed  the 
saving  profession,  and  sank  down  thrice  into  the  water,  and  again  came 
up,"  &c.,  no  one,  we  think,  would  naturally  infer  from  this  representa- 


APPENDIX.  405 

tion  any  indication  of  absolute  nudity.  Others,  however,  as  Lundy, 
regard  this  one  cJiitoniscos  of  the  candidate  (of  which  Chrysostom  makes 
mention)  as  the  white  tunic  to  be  worn  after  baptism ;  which,  of  course, 
supposes  entire  nudeness  during  the  long  process  of  exorcism,  with  its 
attendant  insufflation,  imposition  of  hands,  insignation  of  the  cross,  and 
prayer.  But,  if  they  were  wholly  nude,  why  refer  to  their  being  bare- 
foot ?  for  this  would  be  understood  as  a  matter  of  course ;  and  yet  this 
destitution  of  sandals,  or  nakedness  of  feet,  —  a  comparatively  slight  cir- 
cumstance, —  is  almost  always  referred  to  in  the  patristic  descriptions  of 
baptism.  Basnage  thinks  it  probable  that  "nudo  capite  nudis  pedibus, 
in  fontem  potuerunt  immergi,  cunctamen  obtsgentur  mediae  corporis 
partes ; "  that  is,  that,  during  immersion,  only  the  upper  and  lower  parts 
of  their  persons  were  in  an  entirely  nude  condition.  Thus  the  Pseudo- 
Dionysius  says,  that,  before  making  renunciation,  the  catechumen  was 
divested  of  his  upper  garment,  and,  standing  barefoot  and  in  his  chiton 
only  (whether  afterwards  divested  of  this  is  not  said),  made  three  sepa- 
rate renunciations,  looking  toward  the  west,  the  place  of  darkness ;  and 
then,  turning  to  the  east,  made  thrice  his  confession  of  faith,  and  alle- 
giance to  Christ.  Augustine  also  speaks  of  the  "humbled  neck"  and 
the  "humility  of  the  feet"  of  the  catechumens  during  exorcism.  His 
language  is,  "  Singuli  producei-emini  in  couspectu  totius  ecclesise  ibique 
cervici  humiliata,  quae  male  fuerat  ante  exaltata,  in  humilitate  pedum, 
cilicio  substrato,  in  vobis  celebratur  examen,  atque  ex  vobis  extirparetur 
diabolus."  Yet  Chrysostom  speaks  of  the  candidates  as  being  "dis- 
robed, naked,  and  barefoot "  during  the  public  exercises  of  exorcism  and 
insufflation,  prior  to  baptism ;  which  nudeness  we  know  could  not  have 
been  entii-e.  In  Smith's  "Christian  Antiquities,"  art.  "Bax^tism,"  sect. 
102,  is  a  picture  from  a  pontifical  of  the  ninth  century,  which  represents 
the  immersion  of  an  adult  "  wearing  a  tunic  in  the  font."  The  writer 
of  a  work  recently  published  bj'  the  London  Religious  Tract  Society, 
speaking  of  the  catechumens,  says,  "They  then  came  with  their  feet 
bare;  and,  after  they  had  put  off  their  ordinary  dress,  they  were  clothed 
in  a  single  tunic,  and  not  stripped  naked  as  Bingham  relates."  And  the 
author  of  the  sketch  of  Chrysostom's  life  in  Smith's  "  Dictionarj'  of 
Christian  Biography,"  vol.  i.  p.  528,  speaks  of  the  "removal  of  outer 
garments  "  only,  when  the  candidates  were  baptized ;  and,  when  referring 
to  the  invasion  of  the  baptistery,  says  that  they  rushed,  "  half  dressed, 
shrieking,  into  the  streets,"  to  the  baths  of  Constantine.  In  reference 
to  the  same  event;  the  writer  of  the  sketch  relating  to  Easter  ceremo- 
nies in  Smith's  "Christian  Antiquities"  thus  remarks:  "Many  of  the 
female  catechumens  were  driven  out  only  half  dressed,  having  laid  aside 
their  outer  garments  in  preparation  for  baptism."  And  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Marriott,  in  his  article  "  On  Baptism "  in  the  same  work,  says, 


406  APPENDIX. 

"  Possibly  a  cincture'  of  some  kind  (quo  pudori  consuleretur)  may  have 
been  -worn  as  indicated  in  some  mediseval  works  of  art."  The  Apos- 
tolical Constitutions,  speaking,  in  book  iii.  15,  2,  of  the  need  of  deacon- 
esses in  the  baptism  of  women,  direct  that  "the  deacon  shall  anoint  only 
their  foreheads  with  the  holy  oil,  and  after  him  the  deaconess  shall 
anoint  them ;  for  there  is  no  necessity  that  the  women  should  be  seen 
by  the  men,  but  only  in  the  laying  on  of  hands  the  bishop  shall  anoint 
her  head,"  &c.  Again :  in  book  iii.  16  the  Constitutions  thus  di- 
rect :  "  Thou  therefore,  O  bishop !  shalt  anoint  the  head  of  those  that 
are  to  be  baptized,  whether  they  be  men  or  women,  with  the  holy  oil, 
for  a  type  of  the  spiritual  baptism.  After  that,  either  thou,  O  bishop ! 
or  a  presbyter  that  is  under  thee,  shalt  in  the  solemn  form  name  over 
them  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  and  shalt  dip  them  in  water, 
and  let  a  deacon  receive  the  man,  and  the  deaconess  the  woman,  that 
so  the  conferring  of  this  inviolable  seal  may  take  place  with  a  becoming 
decency."  Epiphanius,  as  quoted  in  Casaubon,  says,  "There  are  also 
deaconesses  in  the  church :  but  this  office  was  not  instituted  as  a  priestly 
function,  nor  has  it  any  interference  with  priestly  administrations ;  but 
it  was  instituted  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  a  due  regard  to  the 
modesty  of  the  female  sex,  especially  at  the  time  of  the  baptismal 
washing,  and  while  the  person  of  the  woman  is  naked,  that  she  may 
not  be  seen  by  the  men  performing  the  sacred  service,  but  by  her  only 
who  is  appointed  to  take  charge  of  the  woman  during  the  time  that 
she  is  naked"  (see  Epiphanius'  "  Haer.,"  79,  3).  Yet  Dr.  Brenner  asserts 
that  the  baptism  of  wholly  nude  candidates  took  place  "publicly  before 
*the  whole  church,"  and  quotes  in  confirmation  of  this  the  words  of 
Cyril :  "  O  wonderful  thing !  you  were  naked  in  the  sight  of  all,  and 
were  not  ashamed."  But,  if  this  were  absolute  nudity,  how  does  it 
comport  with  the  needed  presence  of  deaconesses,  and  with  the  claims 
of  a  "becoming  decency"?  C.  Taylor  goes  so  far  as  to  assert  that  the 
nude  female  catechumens  must  have  been  immersed  by  the  deaconesses 
(prior  to  the  baptismal  pouring,  or  sprinkling,  as  others  will  have  it), 
and  that  only  in  this  way  could  a  "becoming  decency"  have  been 
observed.  Methihks,  however,  one,  rather  than  run  counter  to  so  much 
positive  testimony,  had  better  change  his  views  as  to  the  complete 
nudeness  of  the  candidates.  We  have  referred  in  a  previous  chapter 
to  the  baptism,  by  Bishop  Remigius  or  Remy,  of  Clevis  (together  with 
his  sister  Albofleda  and  other  women)  and  more  than  three  thousand 
of  his  army  on  Christmas  Eve,  A.D.  496:  which  period,  we  suppose,  was 
before  the  reign  of  nudeness  had  passed ;  for  Dr.  Dale  tells  us  that 
even  "  females  were  dipped  naked  into  water  for  a  thoiisand  years,  and 
they  who  did  it  'saw  no  impropriety  in  it.'"  Verily  "they  who  did 
it ' '  and  they  who  suffered  it  must  have  felt  dipping  to  be  a  necessity 


APPENDIX.  407 

in  baptism  to  have  practised  it  and  to  have  endured  it  under  such 
circumstances.  The  baptism  in  the  case  referred  to  was,  as  we  shall 
see,  no  pouring  or  sprinkling,  but  immersion.  Gregory  of  Tours  says, 
"  The  king  was  the  first  to  request  baptism  from  the  pontiff.  The  new 
Constantine  advances  toward  the  bath  (ad  lavacrum),  about  to  wash 
away  .the  disease  of  ancient  leprosy  and  the  filthy  stains,  borne  a  long 
time,  with  the  f  I'esh  water.  As  he  goes  to  baptism,  the  saint  of  God 
with  eloquent  voice  addresses  him :  '  Sicamber,  gently  bow  thy  head ; 
adore  what  thou  hast  burned;  burn  what  thou  hast  adored.'"  Hinc- 
mar,  Archbishop  of  Rheims  in  the  first  half  of  the  ninth  century,  speak- 
ing of  the  baptism  of  Clovis  by  his  predecessor  Remigius,  says,  "  After 
confessing  the  orthodox  faith,  in  answer  to  questions  put  by  the  holy 
pontiff,  he  was,  according  to  ecclesiastical  custom,  baptized  by  trine  im- 
mersion (^secundum  ecclesiasticnm  morern  haptizatus  est  trina  mersione)  in  the 
name  of  the  holy  and  undivided  Trinity,  —  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit,  —  and,  received  by  the  pontiff  himself  from  the  holy  font,  he  was 
anointed  with  sacred  chrism  with  the  sign  of  the  holy  cross  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  Moreover,  from  his  army  three  thousand  men  were  bap- 
tized, without  counting  women  and  children"  (Cathcart's  "Baptism 
of  the  Ages,"  p.  90).  And  the  liturgy  which  Remigius  was  accus- 
tomed to  use,  as  given  in  Burrage's  "  Act  of  Baptism,"  p.  229,  reads 
thus :  "  The  presbyters  or  the  deacons,  or,  if  need  be,  the  acolyths, 
unsandciled,  and  robed  with  other  clean  garments,  enter  the  water  of 
the  fonts,  and,  receiving  them  from  their  parents,  baptize  first  the  males, 
and  then  the  females,  by  trine  immersion  (sub  trlna  mersione),  invoking 
but  once  the  Holy  Trinity,  and  saying,  '  I  baptize  thee  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  dip  once  (riiergis  semel),  and  of  the  Son,  and  dip  again, 
and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,'  and  dip  the  third  time."  Certainly  there  is 
nothing  in  all  this  description  which  looks  like  a  baptismal  compeud, 
or  like  absolute  nudity.  Bunsen,  describing  the  bajttismal  ceremonies 
in  the  time  of  Bishop  Hippolytus,  who  died  a  martyr  in  Rome,  A.D.  235 
(?),  says,  •'  The  deacons  assisted  the  men,  and  the  deaconesses  the 
women,  to  take  oft"  ail  their  ornaments,  and  put  on  the  baptismal 
dress."  And  he  quotes  a  canon  as  saying,  "...  let  them  undress 
themselves ;  and  the  young  shall  be  first  baptized ;  and,  after  the  adult 
men  have  been  baptized,  at  the  last  the  women,  having  loosed  all  their 
hair,  and  having  laid  aside  their  ornaments  of  gold  and  silver  which 
were  on  them.  Let  not  any  one  take  a  strange  garment  with  him  into 
the  water."  (See  Bunsen's  "  Hippolytus  and  his  Age,"  vol.-  ii.  pp.  105- 
124;  also  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  as  above.)  Origen  also,  in  his 
Homily,  xi.  in  Exodus  (translated  by  Rufinus),  says,  "Lota  sunt 
semel  vestimenta  tua,  cum  venisti  ad  gratiam  baptismi,  purificatus  es  cor- 
pore  mundatus  es  ab  omni  iniquinamento   carnis  et  spiritus : "  i.e., 


408  APPENDIX. 

■ "  Once  were  thy  garments  "washed  when  thou  didst  come  to  the  grace 
of  baptism ;  thou  wast  purified  in  body ;  thou  wast  cleansed  from  every 
defilement  of  the  flesh  and  spirit."  This  serves  at  least  to  show  us 
what  our  friends  have  often  denied,  that  our  bodies,  even  with  our 
clothes  on,  can  be  "washed  with  pure  water."  Every  student  of  the 
classics  and  of  the  Christian  Scriptures,  moreover,  knows  that  persons 
were  said  to  be  "naked"  when  they  wore  only  the  tunic,  or  one  garment, 
or  were  lightly  clad.  It  would  appear,  however,  that  both  sexes  among 
the  Greeks  and  Romans  commonly  wore  two  tunics,  —  a  chiton,  and,  as  in 
Chrysostom's  reference,  a  cliitoniscos,  or  chiionion,  a  tunica  and  suhucula 
(see  "Tunica"  in  Smith's  "  Greek  and  Roman  Antiquities").  In  view  of 
these  things,  we  think  it  very  doubtful  whether  adult  candidates  were 
ever  baptized  in  a  perfectly  nude  state.  But,  be  this  as  it  may,  it  is 
certain  that  there  is  no  necessary  connection  between  a  genuine  immer- 
sion and  nudeness.  The  numerous  baptisms  of  persons  in  the  classics 
involved  no  nudeness,  and  had  no  reference  whatever  to  nudeness.  "We 
can  be  "  buried  "  in  the  baptismal  waters  with  our  clothing,  even  as  the 
robed  corpse  is  buried  in  the  tomb,  and  as  Jesus  was  buried  in  the 
sepulchre.  Yet  Bingham  asserts  that  "immersion  necessarily  presup- 
poses nudeness."  The  Rev.  William  Hodges  avers  that  immersion 
"  stands  or  falls  with  naked  subjects."  The  "  venerable  "  Dr.  l^Iiller  and 
Professor  J.  A.  Alexander  affirm,  in  substance,  that  we  have  as  much 
evidence  in  favor  of  immersing  divested  of  all  clothing  as  we  have  for 
immersing  at  all;  and  that  consistency  would  require  of  us,  as  Baptists, 
to  practise  nude  immersion  at  the  present  time.  And,  still  later.  Rev.  S. 
Hutchings  of  Orange,  N.  J.,  has  thrown  this  "nude  immersion"  at  us 
in  reproach,  as  though  either  we,  or  the  idea  of  a  genuine  Christian 
immersion,  were  responsible  for  it.  If  this  kind  of  aspersion  is  still  to 
be  cast  upon  us,  we  may  have  to  remind  our  friends  of  the  pseudo- 
baptism  occasionally  practised  by  their  Pedobaptist  fathers  upon 
babes  unborn,  and  even  upon  abortions.  Nor  can  we  greatly,  blame 
those  fathers  if  they  held,  with  Fulgentius,  truly  a  durus  pater  infantium, 
that  parvuli,  little  ones,  dying  in  utero  matris,  without  the  sacrament  of 
holy  baptism,  "are  punished  with  everlasting  punishment  of  eternal 
fire"  (Bingham,  vol.  i.  p.  447,  Bohn's  edition ;  Wall,  pt.  ii.  chap.  vi.  §  o). 
In  reference  to  these  kinds  of  pedobaptisms,  one  may  consult  the  authori- 
ties in  Brenner's  "  Darstellung,"  pp.  180,  224,  249;  in  Hofling's  "  Sakra- 
ment  der  Taufe,"  p.  128,  seq. ;  also  in  Dr.  Hovey's  article,  p.  132,  not 
in  English,  indeed,  but  in  the  Latin  and  German.  "  Rev.  Charles  Stan- 
ley," in  Hutchings'  "Mode  of  Baptism,"  published  by  the  Congrega- 
tional Publishing  Society  at  Boston,  might  have  dilated,  not  only  upon 
"nude  immersion,"  but  upon  other  and  related  themes,  before  his  naixed 
audience  (on  paper)  of  young  gentlemen  and  ladies . 


APPENDIX.  409 

In  regard  to  the  number  of  presbyters  at  Constantinople  who  assisted 
at  the  baptizing,  we  are  not  fully  certain.  Chrysostom,  speaking  in  his 
letter  to  Boniface  of  the  multitudes  who,  as  "oves  dispersse,"  were 
driven  outside  the  city  walls  on  that  festal  night,  says  that  "  more  than 
forty  bishops  who  communicate  with  us  were,  without  cause,  put  to 
flight  with  the  people  and  clergy."  Were  there  forty  administrators  of 
baptism  on  this  occasion,  this  were  comparatively  a  less  number  to 
perform  the  baptism,  when  all  the  attendant  ceremonies  of  a  patristic 
trine  immersion  are  taken  into  account,  than  would  be  the  ••  twelve  "  in 
the  administration  of  the  Pentecostal  baptism  with  its  single  immersion. 

Most  of  our  readers,  with  an  unspeakable  thrill  of  gladness,  have 
heard  of  the  more  than  Pentecostal  ingathering  of  souls  in  our  "lone- 
star"  mission  among  the  Teloogoos,  during  the  mouths  of  June  and 
July,  A.D.  1878.  Our  missionary  Rev.  J.  E.  Clouglx  reports,  in  the 
September  number  of  "  The  Bfiptist  Missionary  j\lagazine,"  "  Total 
number  baptized  from  June  16  to  July  7  inclusive,  5,429."  The  largest 
number  baptized  on  one  day,  July  3,  was  two  thousand  two  hundred  and 
twenty-two.  The  subjoined  statement  of  the  persons  and  time  occupied 
in  the  baptizing  of  this  large  number  has  just  come  to  hand  :  — 

"  Some  time  ago  the  announcement  was  made  that  the  Baptist  mis- 
sionaries laboring  among  the  Teloogoos  of  Ongole  (India)  and  vicinity 
had  just  baptized  2,222  converts  in  one  day.  The  story  appeared  to  the 
Kev.  J.  li.  Gunning  of  Titusville,  Penn.,  to  be  a  large  one ;  and  so  he 
wrote  to  missionary  Clough  at  Ongole,  and  asked,  '  How  many  men  does 
it  take  to  baptize  2,222  persons  in  one  day  ?  '  Mr.  Clough  was  too 
busy  to  answer,  but  passed  the  letter  over  to  an  associate,  who  replied 
to  IMr.  Gunning  as  follows  :  — 

"  '  With  reference  to  your  question,  "  How  many  men  does  it  take  to 
baptize  2,222  persons  in  one  day?  "  I  should  say  that  depends  on  several 
things ;  but  in  the  present  case  the  simple  reply  is,  "  Six."  But,  lest  this 
be  too  laconic,  I  will  enlarge  a  little.  Bear  in  mind  that  the  baptistery 
was  admirably  situated  for  expeditious  work.  It  was  at  the  ford  of  a 
river,  with  a  sort  of  basin  on  either  side ;  and  no  time  was  lost  in 
coming  or  going,  as  the  water  was  sufficiently  deep  close  up  to  the  road. 
Remember,  too,  that  the  examinations  and  all  other  necessary  prepara- 
tory work  had  been  previously  attended  to.  The  people  were  arranged 
in  groups  according  to  their  villages.  Only  tw"o  jareachers  baptized  at 
one  time ;  when  these  were  tired,  two  others  took  their  places  ;  those,  in 
turn,  were  relieved  by  the  other  two ;  and  so  on.  The  baptizing  com- 
menced at  about  five  a.m.,  and  continued  till  ten.  It  was  resumed  at 
two  P.M.,  and  completed  at  six.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  baptism 
of  2,222  converts  occupied  two  preachers  nine  hours,  or  about  thirty 
seconds  for  each  candidate.     If  the  six  preachers  had  all  been  employed 


410  APPENDIX. 

at  the  same  time,  the  2,222  converts  would  have  been  baptized  in  just 
three  Jiours. 

"'That  the  time  occupied  was  ample  to  do  it  "decently  and  in 
order  "  is  proved  by  an  actual  experiment  made  on  the  30th  of  June 
in  Ongole.  On  that  day  Brother  Clough  baptized  212  converts.  As  he 
entered  the  baptistery,  he  handed  Mrs.  Clough  his  watch ;  at  which  she 
looked,  and  marked  that  he  began  baptizing  at  seventeen  minutes  past 
six;  and,  as  the  last  candidate  rose  from  the  water,  it  was  precisely 
thirty-eight  minutes  past  seven.  The  average  time  will  be  seen  to  be 
twenty-three  seconds  ;  but  no  effort  was  made  at  haste.'  " 


NOTE  v.,  P.  194. 

"  If  the  eunuch,"  says  Dr.  Thomson,  "  came  down  Wady  'Aly  from 
Jerusalem,  he  would  follow  nearly  the  same  track  from  Latron  that  I 
once  took ;  and  this  is  now  regarded  as  the  easiest  and  safest  route." 
Dr.  Robinson  also  states  that  "  the  most  frequented  route  from  Jerusalem 
to  Gaza  at  the  present  day,  although  the  longest,  is  by  the  way  of  Ram- 
leh."  See  also  Smith's  "  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,"  art.  "Gaza."  The 
country  from  Eamleh  to  Gaza  is  "  nearly  level,"  and  this  was  the  great 
commercial  and  military  route  between  Egypt  and  the  northern  cities 
(Tyre,  Sidon,  Damascus,  &c.)  and  nations.  There  are,  however,  two  or 
tlxree  other  and  more  southerly  routes  from  Jerusalem  to  Gaza.  One  is 
through  Wady  Surar  via  Bethshemesh.  Another,  and  still  farther  south, 
is  through  Wady  Musurr,  by  Eleutheropolis,  or  Beit  Jibrin.  Speaking  of 
these  routes.  Dr.  Thomson  says,  "I  know  of  no  brook  on  the  route  from 
Bethshemesh  to  Gaza ;  but  there  may  be  one.  Dr.  Robinson  found  water 
in  the  wady  below  Tell  el  Hasy,  which  is  midway  between  Beit  Jibrin 
and  Gaza,  and  on  the  direct  line  between  them.  This  route  would  lead 
them  near,  if  not  quite  into,  the  desert.  The  same,  however,  might  have 
been  true  of  either  of  the  routes  out  in  the  centre  of  the  plain,  as  it  is 
at  this  day."  Dr.  Robinson's  language  is  as  follows  :  "  "When  we  were  at 
Tell  el  Hasy,  and  saw  the  water  standing  along  the  bottom  of  the  ad- 
jacent wady,  we  could  not  but  remark  the  coincidence  of  several  circum- 
stances with  the  account  of  the  eunuch's  baptism.  This  water  is  on  the 
most  direct  route  from  Beit  Jibrin  to  Gaza,  on  the  most  southern  road 
from  Jerusalem,  and  in  the  midst  of  the  country  now  'desert;'  i.e., 
without  villages  or  fixed  habitations.  The  thought  struck  us  that  this 
might  not  improbably  be  the  place  of  water  described  "  ("  Later  Biblical 
Researches,"  p.  515). 

Dr.  Barclay,  in  his  notes  on  an  "  Excursion  to  Gaza  "  (see  his  "  City 
of  the  Great  King,"  p.  576),  says,  "  We  were  the  more  anxious  to  visit 


APPENDIX.  411 

El  Hassy  on  account  of  information  received  recently  from  a  sheik  of 
Felluge,  and  abundantly  confirmed  at  Burrier,  that  in  Wady  el  Hassy, 
about  two  or  three  hours  distant,  at  Ras  Kussahbeh  and  at  Moyat  es-Sid, 
in  the  same  wady,  the  stream  of  water  is  as  broad  as  our  tent  (twelve 
feet),  and  varies  in  depth  from  a  span  to  six  or  seven  feet,  occasionally 
sinking  and  re-appearing.  This  was  doubtless  Moyat  es-Sid,  the  '  certain 
water  '  of  which  we  were  in  quest;  but  we  were  constrained,  however 
reluctantly,  to  abandon  the  idea  of  seeing  it,"  as,  on  account  of  the  then 
warlike  state  of  the  country,  he  could  neither  coax  nor  hire  guides  to 
accompany  him  thither.  On  inquiry  at  Gaza,  also,  he  learned  that  there 
was  "  abundant  water  four  or  five  hours  from  Gaza,  called  Sheriah,  the 
name  by  which  the  Bedawin  designate  the  waters  of  Jordan." 

Dr.  Thomson's  objection  to  this  route  is,  that  it  "would  carry  them 
many  miles  south  of  Ashdod."  What  would  he  say  of  a  place  so  far 
distant  from  Azotus  as  Bethsur,  adjoining  Hebron,  whose  small  though 
perennial  fountain,  moreover,  could  hardly  give  occasion  for  a  traveller 
to  say,  "  See,  water !  "  ?  "  This  certainly,"  says  Dr.  Robinson,  "  cannot 
have  been  the  water  at  which  the  eunuch  was  baptized;  for  he  was 
driving  in  his  chariot  towards  Gaza,  and  never  could  have  passed  on 
this  route  "  ("Biblical  Researches,"  vol.  i.  p.  217).  Yet  this,  ever  since 
the  time  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  has  been  the  traditional  site  of  the 
eunuch's  baptism;  and  we  see  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Samson,  in  his  "Suf- 
ficiency of  Water  for  Baptizing,"  &c.,  adheres  to  the  correctness  of  this 
tradition.  In  opposition  to  Dr.  Robinson's  statement  as  to  the  impassa-. 
bility  of  the  road,  we  quote  this  statement  from  Professor  Hackett :  "  It 
was  formerly  objected  that  no  chariot  could  have  passed  here,  on  account 
of  the  broken  nature  of  the  ground ;  but  travellers  have  now  discovered 
the  traces  of  a  paved  road,  and  the  marks  of  wheels  on  the  stones  (see 
Ritter's  '  Erdkunde,'  xvi.  1,  p.  266,  and  J.  Wilson's  '  Lands  of  the  Bible,' 
i.  p.  381).  The  writer  found  himself  able  to  ride  at  a  rapid  pace  nearly 
all  the  way  between  Bethlehem  and  Hebron.  The  veneration  of  early 
times  reared  a  chapel  on  the  spot,  the  ruins  of  which  are  still  to  be  seen. 
Von  Raumer  defends  the  genuineness  of  this  primitive  tradition."  The 
latest  statement  which  we  have  seen  regarding  this  point  is  that  of 
Lieut.  Conder,  in  his  "Tent- Work  in  Palestine,"  vol.  ii.  p.  76,  who 
rather  sides  with  Dr.  Robinson.  He  says,  "  The  fountain  of  Dhir- 
weh  "  (near  Hebron)  "  is  traditionally  that  at  which  St.  Philip  baptized 
the  eunuch,  and  tx'aces  of  an  old  chapel  are  visible  above  it;  but  it 
seems  improbable  that  chariots  could  ever  have  travelled  along  these 
stony  mountain-paths,  and  the  road  to  Gaza  by  which  the  apostle  waa 
travelling  on  that  occasion  should  rather  be  sought  in  the  plain." 


412  APPENDIX. 

NOTE  VI.,  P.   242. 

The  fact  that  "sponsors"  were  in  early  times,  and  are  by  some  of 
the  more  important  religious  bodies  of  the  present  day,  appointed  to 
respond  or  answer  for  imconscious  infants  in  their  baptism,  shows  that 
an  open  profession  of  faith  has  been  felt  to  be  a  proper  and  indispensa- 
ble accompaniment  of  Christian  baptism.  Augustine  says  the  sponsors' 
answers  are  "  verba  sacramentorum,  sine  quibus  parvulus  consecrari  non 
potest ; "  that  is,  are  indispensable  in  the  baptizing  of  infants.  The 
Chm'ch  fathers  evidently  would  think  but  little  of  a  pedobaptism  which 
was  unattended  by  a  personal  or  quasi-personal  profession  of  faith. 
The  earlier  sponsors  generally  professed,  in  the  name  of  the  child,  a 
belief  in  God  and  in  the  remission  of  sins,  and  promised  to  renounce 
the  world,  and  the  devil  and  all  his  pofnps.  This  vicarious  principle  is 
strikingly  apparent  in  the  present  ritual  of  the  Protestant-Episcopal 
Church.  The  rubric  of  that  church  requires  three  sponsors  to  answer 
for  the  child's  penitence  and  faith  ;  and  it  is,  we  suppose,  chiefly  on  the 
ground  of  this  hypothetical  faith  that  the  child  is  baptized,  and  subse- 
quently declared  "regenerate"  in  baptism.  Some  Episcopal  writers, 
alike  opposed  to  the  idea  of  any  regeneration  in  or  by  baptism,  as  also 
to  the  idea  of  there  being  "  two  distinct  and  opposite  rules  for  the 
administration  of  baptism,"  have  maintained  that  the  child,  in  answer 
to  the  desires  and  prayers  of  Christian  parents  and  sponsors,  and  espe- 
cially in  answer  to  the  prayers  offered  before  baptism,  is,  or  is  supposed 
to  be,  truly  "sanctified"  and  "born  again"  by  "the  Holy  Spirit,"  and 
"  delivered  from  God's  wrath,"  and  thus  is  qualified  to  receive  "  the 
outward  visible  sign"  of  "the  inward  spiritual  grace."  We  should 
fear,  however,  that,  in  either  case,  the  regeneration  would  be  altogether 
hypothetical  and  doubtful.  The  Rev.  John  S.  Stone,  D.D.,  Griswold 
Lecturer  in  the  Divinity  School  of  the  Protestant- Episcopal  Church  in 
Philadelphia,  concedes  that  "the  effect  of  baptism  on  the  mind  of 
infancy  is  not  immediate,  but  prospective ; "  that  "  baptized  infants  de- 
velop the  unchanged,  unmodified  sinfulness  of  their  nature  just  as 
soon  and  just  as  unmistakably"  as  do  the  unbaptized;  that,  if  both 
classes  of  infants  were  placed  under  the  same  early  religious  training, 
we  may  expect  as  many  conversions  from  the  one  class  as  from  the 
other ;  and  that  the  lesson  of  experience  is,  that  conversions,  whether 
earlier  or  later,  "  are  due,  not  to  any  marvel  supposed  to  be  wrought  in 
or  at  baptism,  but  to  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  through  right 
religious  training."  (See  "  The  Christian  Sacraments,"  p.  223,  seq.^ 
Still,  the  baptismal  services  of  the  Prayer-Book  evidently  regard  the 
regeneration  as  genuine,  since  they  require,  as  the  qualification  for  "  con- 
firmation "  in  after-years,  no  subsequent  conversion  or  change  of  heart, 


APPENDIX.  413 

but  only  a  certain  mental  effort  or  feat  of  memory,  —  to  learn  and  to 
^^say  the  Creed,  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  the  Ten  Commandments,"  &c. 
So  also,  in  the  Catechism,  the  baptized  child  is  instructed  to  say  that 
"  in  baptism  "  he  "  "was  made  a  member  of  Christ,  the  child  of  God,  and 
an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Thus  "  the  strict  Episcopal 
view  makes  baptism,  when  it  has  been  performed,  stand  ever  after 
for  regeneration,  as  the  currency  represents  the  coin  in  the  vault; 
but,  at  the  same  time,  the  Church  is  so  strongly  convinced  that  her 
issue  vastly  exceeds  the  piety  which  she  can  show  for  it,  that  she 
asks  the  'judgment  of  charity,'  and  so  virtually  goes  into  ecclesiastical 
insolvency,  while  she  meanwhile  still  continues  to  send  forth  her  bonds." 
(See  article  entitled  "  F.  W.  Robertson  on  Baptismal  Regeneration," 
by  Rev.  A.  J.  Gordon,  D.D.,  in  "  Baptist  Quarterly"  for  1869,  p.  411  ; 
also  an  article  on  "  Ritualism  in  the  Church  of  England,"  by  President 
E.  G.  Robinson  of  Brown  University,  in  the  "  Quarterly"  for  January, 
1869.) 

But  let  us  now  listen  to  the  profession  and  promises  of  the  sponsors, 
as  made  in  the  name  of  the  child.  In  the  "  Ministration  of  the  Public 
Baptism  of  Infants,"  the  minister,  after  speaking  unto  the  godfathers  and 
godmothers,  and  telling  them  that  "  this  infant  must  also  faithfully,  for 
his  part,  promise,  by  you  that  are  his  sureties  (until  he  come  of  age  to 
take  it  upon  himself),  that  Tie  will  renounce  the  devil  and  all  his  works, 
and  constantly  believe  God's  holy  Word,  and  obediently  keep  his  com- 
mandments," then  demands  of  the  sponsors  individually  as  follows : 
"Dost  thou,  in  the  name  of  this  child,  renounce  the  devil  and  all  his 
works,  the  vain  pomp  and  glory  of  the  world,  with  all  covetous  desires  of 
the  same,  and  the  sinful  desires  of  the  flesh,  so  that  thou  wilt  not  follow 
nor  be  led  by  them  ?  Dost  thou  believe  all  the  Articles  of  the  Christian 
Faith  as  contained  in  the  Apostles'  Creed  ?  Wilt  thou  be  baptized  in 
this  faith?  "  &c.  And  the  answer  to  each  of  these  queries  is,  of  course, 
in  the  affirmative.  In  more  ancient  times,  —  as  we  learn,  for  example,  in 
the  letter  of  Boniface  to  Augustine,  and  in  one  of  Augustine's  sermons 
(ccxciv.),  —  the  sponsors,  instead  of  promising  or  professing  to  believe  in 
the  name  of  the  child,  declared  that  the  child  already  believed.  "  Credit 
in  Jesum  Christum?  fit  interrogatio.  Respondetur:  credit."  And  in 
the  explanation  of  the  sacraments,  composed  by  Bishop  Overall,  and 
added  to  the  Catechism  in  1604,  it  is  asked,  "Why,  then,  are  infants 
baptized,  when,  by  reason  of  their  tender  age,  they  cannot  perform 
them?"  And  the  answer  given  is,  "Yes,  they  do  perform  them 
(repentance  and  faith)  by  their  sureties,  who  promise  and  vow  them 
both  in  their  names,"  &c.  At  the  Savoy  Conference,  in  1661,  the  Presby- 
terians strongly  opposed  all  this  sponsor  business,  and  desired  that  "the 
entering  infants  into  God's  covenant  may  be  more  warily  expressed,  and 


414  APPENDIX, 

that  the  words  may  not  seem  to  found  their  baptism  upon  a  really  actual 
faith  and  repentance  of  their  own,  and  that  a  promise  may  not  be  taken 
for  a  performance  of  such  faith  and  repentance,  and  especially  that  it  be 
not  asserted  that  they  perform  these  by  the  promise  of  their  sureties;  it 
being  to  the  seed  of  believers  that  the  covenant  of  God  is  made,  and  not 
to  all  that  have  such  believing  sureties  who  are  neither  parents  nor  pro- 
parents  of  the  child."  Again  they  say,  "We  know  not  by  what  right 
the  sureties  do  promise  and  answer  in  the  name  of  the  infant :  it  seem- 
eth  to  us  also  to  countenance  the  anabaptistical  opinion  of  the  necessity 
of  an  actual  profession  of  faith  and  repentance  in  order  to  baptism." 
They  therefore  desired  that  the  two  first  interrogatories  (which  were 
addressed  to  the  infants,  though  answered  by  the  sponsors)  should  be 
put  to  the  parents,  to  be  answered  in  their  own  names,  and  the  last  be 
propounded  to  the  parents  or  pro-parents,  thus :  "  Will  you  have  this 
child  baptized  into  this  faith  ?  "  But  the  bishops,  in  reply,  rebutted  the 
charge  of  anabaptism,  and  affirmed,  that,  as  "  God's  sacraments  have 
their  effects  where  the  receiver  doth  not  'ponere  obicem,'  put  any  bar 
against  them  (which  children  cannot  do),  we  may  say  ia  faith,  of  every 
child  that  is  baptized,  that  it  is  regenerated  by  God's  Holy  Spirit ;  and 
the  denial  of  it  tends  to  anabaptism,  and  the  contempt  of  this  holy  sacra- 
ment as  nothing  worthy,  nor  material  whether  it  be  administered  to 
children  or  no."  Yet  they  were  willing  to  alter  the  words  of  the  Cate- 
chism, "  Yes,  they  do  perform  them,"  as  seeming  to  imply  actual  faith 
and  repentance,  into  "Because  they  promise  them  both  by  their  sure- 
ties," &c. ;  and  this  form  of  words  survives  to  the  present  day. 

Bishop  Boniface,  as  long  ago  as  the  time  of  Augustine  (about  A.D. 
400),  was  puzzled  to  know  how  all  this  could  be  promised  for  the  child 
who  had  no  thought  or  apprehension  of  these  things,  and  of  whose 
future  character  and  history  nothing  could  be  known.  His  letter  to 
Augustine  reads  as  follows :  "  Suppose  I  set  before  you  an  infant,  and 
ask  you  whether,  when  he  grows  up,  he  will  be  a  chaste  man,  or 
whether  he  will  not  be  a  thief  ?  You  doubtless  will  answer,  '  /  do  not 
know.'  And  whether  he,  in  that  infant  age,  have  any  thought,  good  or 
evil  ?  You  will  still  say,  '■  I  do  not  know.'  If,  then,  you  dare  not  assert 
any  thing  concerning  his  future  conduct  or  his  present  thoughts,  what  is 
the  reason,  that,  when  they  are  presented  for  baptism,  their  parents,  as 
sponsors  for  them,  answer,  and  say,  they  do  that  of  which  their  infant 
age  is  not  able  to  think,  or,  if  it  can,  it  is  a  profound  secret?  For  we 
ask  those  by  whom  it  is  presented,  and  say,  '  Does  he  believe  in  God  ?  ' 
(which  question  concerns  that  age  which  is  ignorant  whether  there  be  a 
God.)  They  answer,  '■He  does  believe.'  And  so,  like^vise,  an  auswer  is 
returned  to  all  the  rest.  Whence  I  wonder  that  parents  in  these  affairs 
answer  so  confidently  for  the  child,  that  he  does  so  many  good  things 


APPENDIX.  415 

vrhich  at  the  time  of  his  baptism  the  administrator  demands.  And  yet 
■were  I  at  that  very  time  to  ask,  '  Will  this  baptized  child,  when  grown  to 
maturity,  be  chaste?  '  or,  'Will  he  not  be  a  thief  V '  I  know  not  whether 
any  one  would  venture  to  answer,  '  He  will,'  or  '  He  will  not,  be  the  one  or 
the  other,'  as  they  answer  without  hesitation,  ^ He  believes  in  God;  He 
turns  to  God.' "  His  letter  concludes  thus :  "  I  entreat  you  to  give  me 
a  short  answer  to  these  questions  in  such  a  manner  as  that  you  do  not 
urge  to  me  the  prescription  of  the  customariness  of  the  thing,  but  give  me 
the  reason  of  it."  Augustine  replies  in  substance,  that  the  sign  and  the 
thing  signified  are  frequently  used  interchangeably,  and  that  thus  "the 
sacrament  of  faith  is  faith,"  and  the  child  partaking  of  the  sacrament 
of  faith  and  of  conversion  may  be  said  to  believe,  and  to  turn  to  God. 
"  And  so  far  it  will  avail,  that,  if  he  depart  this  life  before  the  use  of 
reason,  he  will,  by  this  Christian  remedy  of  the  sacrament  itself  (the 
charity  of  the  church  recommending  him),  be  made  free  from  that  con- 
demnation which  by  one  man  entered  into  the  world."  This  is  on 
Augustine's  principle,  "  Credit  in  altero  qui  peccavit  in  altero,"  and 
*' ad  verba  aliena  infans  sanatur,  quia  ad  factum  alienum  vulneratur." 
(See  more  fully  in  Wall's  "  History  of  Infant-Baptism,"  vol.  i.  p.  217, 
and  Professor  Chase's  article  in  "  The  Christian  Review "  for  1863, 
p.  571,  seq. ;  and,  on  the  subject  of  sponsors  in  general,  see  Bingham's 
*'  Christian  Antiquities,"  and  Hofling's  "  Sakrament  der  Taufe,"  vol.  ii. 
p.  4,  seq.) 

This  vicarious^principle,  in  early  times,  was  occasionally  carried  a  step 
farther;  as  when,  in  supposed  accordance  with  the  literal  meaning  of 
1  Cor.  XV.  29,  a  living  person  was  "baptized  for  the  dead."  In  this 
case  the  living,  under  the  dead  man's  bed,  would  respond  for  the  dead 
man's  faith,  and  his  desire  to  be  baptized,  and  then  would  receive 
baptism  in  his  stead.  Supposing  the  dead  man  himself  were  baptized 
on  the  faith  of  his  sponsors,  would  not  Augustine's  theory,  that  "the 
sacrament  of  faith  is  faith  "  (though,  as  in  the  case  of  infants,  involun- 
tarily and  unconsciously  received),  entitle  the  dead  man  also  to  the 
name  of  believer?  ^ 

We  may  j  ust  here  add  a  few  words  in  regard  to  the  supposed  mean- 
ing of  the  phrase  "baptized  for  the  dead."  Calov  (died  1CS6)  reckoned 
up  in  his  day  as  many  as  twenty-three  different  interpretations.  We 
have  space  here  to  refer  but  to  few  of  them.  Tertullian  answers  the 
apostle's  question  thus  :  "  '  Why  are  they,  then,  baptized  for  the  dead,' 

1  The  ox)us  operatum  ef3Sicacy  of  the  sacraments  has  been  deemed  so  great, 
that  the  dead  have  actually  been  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins;  and  the 
eucharist  has  been  placed  wdthin  their  lips,  as  also  on  their  breasts,  when  they 
were  buried.  These  customs,  as  we  might  expect,  prevailed  mostly  in  North 
Africa,  where  we  first  hear  of  infant-baptism  and  infant-communion. 


416  APPENDIX. 

unless  the  bodies  rise  again  which  are  thus  baptized?  For  it  is  not  the 
soul  which  is  sanctified  by  the  baptismal  bath  :  its  sanctification  comes 
from  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience."  Chrysostom  says,  '"for  the 
dead,'  —  that  is,  the  bodies;  for  you  are  baptized  upon  this,  believing  in 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead  body."  Theodoret  gives  it  the  same  turn  : 
"  The  baptized  person  is  buried  with  his  Lord,  in  order  that,  sharing  in 
His  death,  he  may  also  be  a  sharer  of  His  resurrection.  But  if  the  body 
is  dead,  and  does  not  rise,  why,  then,  is  it  also  baptized?  "  Luther  sees 
in  it  a  baptism  over  the  graves  of  the  dead,  as,  in  the  early  church,  bap- 
tism was  occasionally  performed  over  the  graves  of  martyrs.  Epiphanius 
refers  it  to  the  baptism  of  clinics ;  that  is,  of  persons  about  to  die,  or 
who  had  death  before  their  eyes.  So,  for  substance,  Calvin  and  Bengel. 
Others,  as  Doddridge  and  Olshausen,  render  it,  baptized  in  the  room  of 
the  dead,  in  order  to  fill  up  their  places.  "  Huper  "  (for),  says  Pro- 
fessor Cramer,  "  assigns  the  motive.  Baptized  for  the  dead ;  that  is,  not 
for  the  advantage  of  the  dead,  but  that  the  dead,  inasmuch  as  they  will 
rise  again,  give  the  living  occasion  to  be  baptized."  Billroth,  Riickert, 
Neander,  DeWette,  Lleyer,  Alford,  Professor  Grimm,  and  others,  take  it 
literally,  as  baptizing  the  living  for  the  dead;  i.e.,  for  the  good  of  those 
who  died  in  an  unbaptized  state.  Professor  Irah  Chase  refers  it,  as  do 
many  of  the  fathers,  to  the  baptism  for  (the  resurrection  of)  the  dead ; 
that  is,  a  baptism  in  reference  to  and  in  faith  of  the  resurrection.  Pro- 
fessor A.  C.  Kendrick  (in  "  The  Baptist  Quarterly  "  for  1862,  p.  669)  says, 
"  The  passage  admits  of  these  renderings,  —  baptized  over  the  dead,  bap- 
tized on  helialf  of  the  dead,  baptized  in  relation  to  the  dead ; "  and  main- 
tains that  "the  passage  refers  to  baptism,  as  pledging  its  subjects, 
especially  in  apostolic  times,  to  su:ffering  and  death."  (See  also  the 
January  and  July  numbers  of  the  "  Review  "  for  1862,  and  the  same 
"Review"  for  April,  1852,  and  October,  1855,  also  §  18,  p.  139,  of 
Matthies'  "  Baptismatis  Expositio,"  for  a  fuller  discussion  of  this  sub- 
ject.) 


"> 

r-  t/ 

■  *>> 

■" '. , 

'4 

'H': 

'<■' 

,  u. 

..'/..41^^ 


''W^U^-  ■ 


■^■!::^* 


•ItV.. 


''       V.    '*■      M'. 


,i 


>**•    f. 


fe?'i' 


-'il»..'.i    ,  ■•.5 


'■^  V 


If* *:*i'v,  1 1 


;fi 


."^.■Vd 


